^0^ 






v^^ 



^ o. 












kO*-^^ N^ ^'f^' '"^ '"// ''■^^""'^ ^ "'• ,\'^'' 












N^^x. 



\ 



- V 



e^^ 



'^^ v^~ 



^J- ■r 



C' 



'/'o. 


















"oo'' 



■"^.. v^ 
























S'^"^. 



* 8 



■J ^ ^ 






^^. ^^ 



•% ^^ 













..\^ 



.'^ 



^^ P>e^^.^^*^ 




^^-^ ^ /<r3 ^. 



IMPARTIAL EXPOSrnOx\ 



EVIDENCES AND DOCTRINES 



CHRISTIAN RELIGION 



ADDRESSED TO THE BETTER EDUCATED CLASSES OF SOCIETF. 



II V J. II. IflcCUJLIiOII, Jr. ITI. D. 

Author of " Researches, P/iilosopkical and Antiquarian, concerning the Aboriginal History 

of America.''* 



BALTIMORE: 

ARMSTRONG & BERRY. 
18 3 6. 




V^ 






?,i 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835. by Armstrong & Bbrby, in the 
Clerk's Office of the District Court of Maryland. 



ZA^/ 



J. W. Woods, printer. 



TO THOMAS E. BOND, M. D. 

Dear Sir: 

The compliment of this dedication is due to you above all 
my other friends and acquaintance. Not only has our intercourse for 
above twenty years been to me of the most grateful kind, but I am 
indebted to you for important suggestions and corrections of opinion of 
no small value and interest. Though we do not concur in every partic- 
ular of belief, our friendship has never been disturbed by that circum- 
stance, and you will perceive, on examining the ensuing pages, that, 
on more than one subject, your influence has induced modifications 
of statement and expression, that I trust will be more beneficial to 
general readers than what I had previously advanced in our familiar 
conversation. 

I am, 

With respect and esteem, 

J. H. McCULLOH, Jr. M. D. 

Baltimore, Dec. 4th, 1835. 



PREFACE 



When I first undertook to write the following Essay I had no in- 
tention whatever of making it public. I was solely influenced by the 
suggestions of parental solicitude to prepare something that should as- 
sist my own children to the better comprehension of a subject which I 
deemed of all others the most important. But when the work was 
nearly finished, it seemed to me that its publication could not but 
have a beneficial influence at the present time, when the institutions 
of the civilized world, seem to be on the eve of a great change in which 
new opinions must subvert ancient prejudices, and society be regu- 
lated by a theory of principles very diflerent from those which have 
hitherto influenced the interests of mankind. Under such an im- 
pression T resolved to publish the work in which I was engaged, and 
which only required me to suppress or change a phraseology ad- 
dressed to my own children into forms of speech suitable to persons 
who would not regard my opinions under any influence of filial pre- 
possession. 

The first principles of the Christian religion are necessarily re- 
ceived by children in prejudices which are strengthened by the exam- 
ple of those around them. But as they advance in life, the time arrives 
when every intellectual person must determine by his own percep- 
tion of truth, and on his own responsibility, whether he will obey 
the gospel of Jesus Christ or not. This important determination 
for the most part forces itself on young men when they are mosf 
exposed to the temptations of life, and when surrounded by compan- 
ions not only indiflferent, but in too many instances directly hostile 
to the theory and obligations of the Christian religion. 



To meet this eventful period of early manhood, — this moral crisis 
of mtellectual life, the following pages have been written. They 
are especially addressed to those who have had the benefit of a liber- 
al education, who have seen the first novelty of adult life pass away, 
and who are, or ought to be, able to assign the reasons why they be- 
lieve or reject any subject of philosophical speculation. 

I have never considered my readers to be either atheists or deists, 
but simply as being more or less sceptical concerning the divine con- 
stitution of the Christian religion, and but imperfectly acquainted 
with the true doctrinal principles of our religious faith. Under this 
supposition I have attempted to vindicate the divine appointment of 
Christianity, to exhibit the simplicity of its doctrinal requirements, 
and to expose the defective reasoning employed by the atheists and 
deists on the more important controverted points. 

1 have rarely departed from this plan of confining my expositions 
to the sceptical or to the half instructed of the better educated classes 
of society — but on two or three occasions, I have extended my dis- 
course upon certain points of perplexed or important consideration, 
under the hope that my views upon such subjects, may not be unin- 
teresting, even to those who are the best instructed in the principles 
of the Christian faith. 

It is perhaps needless to observe that in attempting to make this 
work of but moderate size, I have been greatly restricted in the ex- 
position of my views. Several of the subjects that 1 have but briefly 
introduced, have an immense influence and would require long dis- 
cussions to show their actual importance. Though I have attempt- 
ed to exhibit such matters in their strongest points of view, yet I may 
have made a false estimate of them, or may not have urged them as 
clearly as I ought to have done. If 1 am entitled to any indulgence, 
it is on the ground that I had more materials than I knew how to 
dispose of properly; so that possibly from fear of writing too much, 1 



vu 

may have omitted what was necessary to a clearer exposition of my 
subject. 

In attempting to appreciate the possible reception of this discourse 
by the Christian public, I cannot but be aware that many persons 
may be startled and some offended by the views I have taken and 
the arguments I have urged. But though I shall be distressed if any 
honest, good man be offended through my mis-judgment of things, 
yet I cannot hesitate a single moment to express what I think cor- 
rect in the most unequivocal language, though I have used my ut- 
most efforts to do so with courtesy and charity. As I have under- 
taken to vindicate the truth of a system which involves the dearest 
interests of mankind, whether for time or eternity, so I cannot but 
speak in such a manner that my own conscience shall not reproach 
me with having handled the message of God deceitfully, or having 
been guilty in any degree of the smallest suppression of truth. 

With my mind filled from all quarters with recollections of human 
presumption, weakness, and mis-judgment, and conscious of my own 
infirmity and liability to error, I cannot hesitate to express myself 
fearful lest I may have advanced certain things improperly or incor- 
rectly in the ensuing pages; should this be the case, I trust I shall 
be found not only willing, but anxious to make ample reparation for 
any error into which I may have fallen, and to recommend the adop- 
tion of better views and opinions. On this subject, however, I can 
mistrust nothing at the present time. I have from the commence- 
ment of this work been fully aware of the responsibility which 1 
had assumed, and therefore have diligently exerted myself not only 
to ascertain what was true, but I have to the utmost aimed to be 
faithful in the annunciation of that truth. 



INTRODUCTION 



To a person who has either imperfect or erroneous views concern- 
ing the theory of the Christian Religion, nothing seems more per- 
plexing than the fact, that notwithstanding its continued triumph over 
the civilized world for more than eighteen hundred years, that a 
keen controversy should still exist among intellectual men, whether 
it be that system of divine appointment for which its advocates 
have so long contended. 

This circumstance, however, involves no difficulty of explanation, 
for this discrepancy of opinion is one of the inseparable peculiarities 
of the system, and must ever so continue until the consummation of 
our earthly condition Christianity, according to its express theory, 
is a system addressed to men as free agents of limited capacities, 
who are undergoing intellectual and moral probation under its pe- 
culiar appointments: as long, therefore, as the system so exists, so 
long will men differ in their opinion concerning its truth or its mer- 
its. The theory of Christianity most distinctly implies, that every 
individual shall be judged hereafter, in his own personal responsibil- 
ities. Every one, therefore, must determine for himself, both the 
truth and the particular obligations of the system, and if any one 
will consider the moral constitution of things around him, he will 
perceive it to be impossible to escape from incurring this individual 
responsibility; for, judge or determine he must by his own act, 
whether he accepts, rejects, or doubts on the subject. No one is im- 
pelled in any manner to adopt any opinion on the subject, contrary 
to the approbation of his own judgment. Whatever course, there- 
fore, the individual does take, he incurs the responsibility of his own 
free judgment or choice, and for this he will have to account here- 
after.* 

* It is a remarkable mistake among the majority of men, to consider that 
the natural condition of the human mind is that of unbelief. 

The natural condition of the human mind is ignorance; it knows nothing. 
2 



10 

As the theological or ethical obligations of Christianity are ad- 
dressed to men as intelligent creatures, capable of unlimited intellec- 
tual improvement, so the truth of the system and the extent of 
its obligations must be continually appreciated, under the augment- 
ed light of every successive century. The matured adult does not 
differ more from the boy in his judgment upon philosophical subjects 
than the philosophy of one century differs from another, and hence 
as the Christian religion has been appointed to every age of time, and 
every intellectual condition of men, so it must be evident that every 
increase of knowledge, enlarges or varies the ground of controversy 
concerning the merits of the system, according as a judicious or in- 
judicious application is made of any new discovered principle of truth 
or science. 

As it must be clear that with every increase of knowledge, we 
become more capable of judging correctly, so the advocates or the 
enemies of Christianity become ipso facto, more discerning, as 
to the value of the evidences produced in its favor, or of 
those objections that are urged against its claims. Thus new 
views are continually suggested, which, after having been suffici- 
ently discussed, at last receive a value either as evidence, or objec- 
tion more or less important. Therefore, since God has made man- 
kind intellectual and moral creatures, to undergo probation before 
him, in their individual capacities, — as long as human nature shall 
continue under that constitution, so long it must be evident that we 
shall be under the influence of those particular causes that affect 
our understanding and excite our free agency. Our probation under 
the theory of Christianity, does not consist in the degree of our 
knowledge or attainments, but in the honest use of the knowledge, 
the talents, the means, the advantages which we do possess. Thus 
under the scheme of probation, there is no difficulty in explaining the 
fact, why individuals, whether of small or great intellectual powers, 
should continually differ in their opinion concerning the truth and 
obligations of the Christian religion.* 

The second stage of advancement is that of scepticism or doubtfulness, when a 
man, after a certain amount of investigation, is unable to determine whether 
he ought to believe, or disbelieve. If, at a future time, he professes to believe, 
he must be able to justify that belief, and if he disbelieves, he must be able to 
justify that unbelief. This must be evident to every one that will reflect for a 
moment. A subject may be involved with difficulties, so that it may be im- 
possible for one to decide whether it is to be believed or not, but if a man does 
disbelieve, his act is as }wsitive as the act of him that does believe, and by parity 
of reason he must justify his unbelief. For why does he not believe? 

*As it is possible for some ignorant conceited person to suppose that his 



11 

The great feature of Christianity is, that it is a probationary 
system; and though every one must acknowledge this to be the fact, 
yet this eminent peculiarity of the system appears in a remark- 
able manner to be almost entirely forgotten in the systematic spec- 
ulations on the subject of its divine appointment, whether as made 
by Christian or deist, and in consequence of which, great error 
and confusion has prevailed in their general discourses on this sub- 
ject. 

The deists in an especial manner have disregarded the subject 
of probation as involved in the constitution of the Christian religion, 
urging against it this query instead of argument: Why should God 
wish to prove us? Surely all things from the beginning to the end, 
are known to him, and it is therefore absurd to suppose he can 

incredulity of the Christian religion may be justifiable under such an expres- 
sion as the above; I beg leave to observe, that I by no means admit that the 
unbelief of the ordinary class of infidels upon this subject, is to be considered 
of the least rationality. Their unbelief does not depend upon any comparison 
ofthe value of conflicting arguments, but upon some presumptuous conceit 
excited by their pride or sensuality, which they maintain without either sense 
or reason. Such persons having assumed some position or other contrary to 
Christianity, in the self-sufliciency of complacent ignorance, justify themselves 
by the inability of their opponents to prove the negative to their unwarrantable 
assumption. To do this is indeed impossible, not only on this subject, but 
upon any other subject of human speculation, and the dullest understanding 
may appreciate the absurdity of such a requirement, if he will only make it 
his business to disprove the opinion of an opponent. 

No man can be called rational in his notions who is not able to justify Ais own 
doctrine by a greater or less amount of good argument, and no one can be 
deemed either capable or honest, who is unable to state what are the strongest 
positions of his opponent, as well as concede to them the force to which they 
are entitled. 

I know of no surer method of exposing the ignorant presumption of the 
lower order of infidels, than of asking these "men of reason," as they ludic- 
rously term themselves, What they consider to be the strongest evidences in 
favor of Christianity? If a man is ignorant ofthe true merits of Christianity, 
he will be so embarrassed and perplexed as to satisfy every one he knows nothing 
of the subject, and if he should deny that there is any evidence whatever 
in its favor, as some of them will do, — the presumption of such an ass in cast- 
ing so gross an imputation on the understanding ofthe illustrious defenders of 
Christianity is so egregious that any bystander ofthe least honesty, however 
ignorant he may be, can but perceive that such an infidel has affixed the 
broad arrow upon his own capacity or honesty, and as such is totally unquali- 
fied to give the least expression of his ignorant presumptions. 

The uneducated Christian cannot vindicate, in an able manner, the divine 
constitution of Christianity. But though they lack learning they can never- 
theless ap])rcciate the excellency ofthe Christian religion. That thoy should 
therefore be earnest in its commendation, and sincere in professing it, is very 
natural. How can they mistrust the Gospel? To do so they must discern in 
what it is defective, and they must be able to discern the merits of any system 
that is proposed as its substitute. But Christianity is defective in nothing that 
regards either the attributes ofthe Creator or the obligations of human nature; 
and no system that has been suggested has any comparable ovcoUence. The 
prejudice therefore ofthe unlearned Christian is justifiable on the simple 
ground that it would be irrational to abandon a perfect for an irrational system. 



12 

want to prove us, as by his foreknowledge he can anticipate the re- 
sult. Acting upon such a notion, they insist upon examining Chris- 
tianity, on the ground that as being an asserted revelation from 
God to man, so that fact ought to be so distinctly clear and evident, 
that no one should be able to doubt on the subject. 

But surely nothing can be more unreasonable than this notion of 
the deists, for since Christianity claims as a part of its very consti- 
tution, that it is a probationary system, so it is absurd to the last de- 
gree to undertake to judge of the system in any other light than the 
one in which its peculiarity is represented to consist. 

Whether Christianity be true or false is another question, but 
whether it be true or false, the theory of probation is so absolutely 
involved in its constitution that it is impossible to inquire into its 
merits or truth, except in relation to a theory which constitutes its 
very essence, and which alone enables us to appreciate its peculiar 
features as connected with those intellectual or moral problems 
' which constitute the subjects of our knowledge or speculation. 

The proceeding of the deists, therefore, never proposes to ascer- 
tain whether God has made a revelation of the Christian religion to 
mankind, but attempts to show what would have been a better plan, 
according to their views than the one announced. Upon this sub- 
ject, we have no opinion; what we are anxious to ascertain is the 
simple fact, whether Christianity is, or is not of God's appointment. 

Many of the Christian writers by losing sight of the fact of our 
continual probation during life, have seriously injured Christianity 
by asserting that its truth and evidences are so clear, that none but 
those who are deficient in integrity of purpose can doubt on the sub- 
ject. If this statement was true, it would render Christianity no 
scheme of intellectual or moral probation, but one of simple obedi- 
ence or disobedience to the literal commandments of God, which it 
certainly is not. 

Seeing therefore the great importance of keeping the fact of our 
probationary condition constantly before us, let me endeavor to lay 
this subject before the reader in its true relation to our intellectual 
constitution under the theory of Christianity. 

Probation, as applied to our condition under the appointments of 
the Christian religion, does not imply as the deists have been pleased 
to regard this subject, that God is making an experiment on us that 
he may ascertain whether we would suit some ulterior purpose or 



13 

other in his economy. Such a notion is universally opposed by the 
whole tenor of the Scripture, which ascribes foreknowledge most dis- 
tinctly to God as one of his attributes. The true import of proba- 
tion as involved in the theory of Christianity, is conveyed by the 
term discipline, that is to say the probation or discipline that we 
undergo in our present life, is to operate, not on the Divine mind, but 
on mankind alone; it is to fit and prepare us through our own free 
agencies for purposes contemplated by God to take place in eternity, 
but concerning which we profess absolute ignorance. 

Christianity then, as a probationary scheme, has been addressed 
to mankind as intellectual and moral creatures, free to think or act 
right, free to think or act wrong, and consistently therewith every 
particular subject in the physical or intellectual constitution of the 
world, is subservient to the accomplishment of our moral trial or dis- 
cipline. Hence, as God has placed man in a condition to undergo 
such discipline, it is perfectly consistent with such a scheme that he 
should exhibit all things to us whether moral or physical, construct, 
edwith such admixtures of good and evil, of truth and doubtfulness, 
that we should be compelled as it were to exercise those powers 
which have been committed to our individual free agency. 

If a belief in the existence and providence of God constitutes a part 
of our intellectual discipline, it is but consistent with that fact, that 
neither God's existence, nor his providence shall be exhibited to us 
in such a manner as to preclude all doubt on those subjects. If these 
particulars were undeniably evident, how could there be any room 
to exercise free agency under a moral and intellectual constitution. 

The same observation applies to all the parts or details of the gen- 
eral system, for instance as respects the Scriptures; if they contain 
the rule of faith or practice by which our free agency is to be exer- 
cised on the scheme of an intellectual and moral self-discipline, it is 
perfectly consistent with such a system, that their truth, their inspi- 
ration, and their authority, should be involved with such circum- 
stances of perplexity and doubtfulness, that all our powers shall be 
exercised both to understand and to obey their requirements. Was 
it otherwise, was the truth and inspiration of the scripture writings 
self-evident, there could be no moral or intellectual exercise on the 
subject. Who then could disbelieve? 

No one must imagine by my preceding observations, that 1 in- 
tend to convey the idea that there is any determined evil mixed up 



14 

with the exhibition of God's energy in the constitution of the natural 
world, or that there is any measure of error or contradiction mingled 
with the truths of the Scripture, for the purpose of exercising our 
abilities in the investigation of such subjects. I mean nothing like 
this; I consider the theory of our probation to consist in this circum- 
stance, that man, a being of limited intellect and capacity, has been 
partially made acquainted with certain particulars of a great scheme, 
framed in the infinite wisdom of God, but which is only imperfectly 
comprehended by man while the system progresses to its ultimate 
consummation. 

Since the theory of our Christian probation arises simply in the 
disproportion that exists between God's perfect scheme, and our im- 
perfect comprehension of it, it is evident that we ought to ascer- 
tain as accurately as possible, our degree of perfection, or our degree 
of imperfection, be the terms what they may, before we undertake 
to determine upon those parts of the system which fall legitimately 
under our inspection, as objects of intellectual investigation. 

The absolute importance of ascertaining the actual powers of the 
human mind, before we embark upon any subject of philosophical 
speculation, is a point upon which every rational man must be in 
accord. Every one, whether Christian or deist, is fully sensible that 
he is a being of limited capacities and powers, whether intellectual 
or moral. Under this universal admission, it follows necessarily, 
that we should ascertain, as correctly as possible, how far a man is 
capable of discerning the truth, and the relation of things to one 
another? how far can we rationally extend our philosophical specula- 
tions, ajid when should we begin to mistrust our capacities and 
powers? 

Simple as these queries are, and important as every one must con- 
fess them to be, where are we to find a satisfactory answer to them. 
The very first step we make to obtain the required information 
plunges us at once into abstruse and subtle disquisitions of metaphy- 
sical science, which the greater part of mankind can neither com- 
prehend nor follow. Neither can we take any other course to acquire 
this necessary information, for every species of reasoning is in itself 
necessarily a metaphysical process, and inevitably will extend itself 
from the simplest theory of ratiocination to those most abstruse 
reasonings, employed by the brightest genius of philosophy.* 

* It may be possible that some person of limited information may propose 
to discuss this subject by what he terms common sense, a phrase that is in the 



16 

Every intellectual operation, however vulgar it may be, is 
founded on the belief that the human mind has certain capacities and 
degrees of discernment, with an ability to speculate upon the na- 
ture, the causes, and the relation of things; and upon this foundation 
vulgar and ignorant persons reason and vindicate their opinions by 
reference to their crude metaphysical estimate of the capacity and 
power of their intellectual faculties. It therefore must be evident, 
that the more instructed and discerning that any one becomes on 
such subjects, so much the more refined and abstruse he must be- 
come in his metaphysical speculations concerning the capacity and 
powers of the human mind. 

In calling the reader's attention to this subject, I have not the 
smallest idea of attempting to communicate any information which 
shall furnish him with that elementary knowledge by which he shall 
be enabled to estimate his own powers and capacities. The only ob- 
ject I have in view is to caution the reader not to estimate his ca- 
pacity and powers to be greater than they really are. The attain- 
ment of this knowledge must be from his own study and reflection; 
it is not to be communicated but through the medium of his own ac- 
tive exertions both long and diligently applied. 

It is unfortunately a common mistake among mankind to presume 
on their capacity and powers without having ever attempted to ascer- 
tain their amount or value, and hence a multitude of errors have 

mouth of many persons, whenever they find arg:uments stated above their 
capacity. But what is this common sense,— does it mean any thing else than 
the ordinary degree of intelligence possessed by the common class of mankind? 
But this ordinary degree of intelligence is that of the less educated portion of 
society; it is sufficient indeed for the common transactions of men among them- 
selves, but certainly it can claim no right to determine on subjects that are 
above the comprehension of an ordinary education. The common sense of 
mankind with us, is that amount of light and intelligence, which a plain edu- 
cation has made almost universal among us, and thus it is properly called com- 
7710/1 sense, i. e. the common amount of intelligence belonging to our general state 
of society. But this common sense has no particular degree or standard among 
mankind in general, it varies with every condition of society, and with every 
degree of civilization and education. The common sense of the Africans or 
the Tartars — is not the common sense of the more enlightened people of 
Europe and America, — it varies and increases with their degree of civilization 
or education; and no limits can be assigned to its improvement. But in whatever 
stage it exists, it only means that amount of light and knowledge which is 
common to a particular society, and whenever we appeal to common sense to de- 
cide upon any point, we mean nothing else than that the appealed point is so 
intelligible, that the mere ordinary light and instruction of the general society, 
in which we are placed, can decide its merits or truth, and that it does not re- 
quire, any refined or novel proof or argument. But this is not the case with 
metaphysics in its higher branches, these are studies of themselves; and the 
common sense of society at large can no more understand them without study 
and application, than that common sense should, without instruction — make a 
steam engine, or navigate a ship across the ocean. 



16 

prevailed in consequence of men having presumed to judge and de- 
termine on subjects they were altogether incapable of appreciating. 

But though we cannot pretend to furnish elementary instruction 
on this subject, it is of importance to speak of it in such a manner, 
that the reader may discern the value that we have placed on the 
subject as the result of our individual study. 

To ascertain the true amount of the capacities of the human mind, 
and to determine the ability we have to estimate the truth or rela- 
tions of things, whether internal or external to ourselves, is not only 
the most abstruse subject upon which the human mind has ever ex- 
ercised itself, but we need not hesitate to say, is one that never can 
be brought to any demonstrable conclusion. This must be evident 
from the simple fact of our imperfect nature by which we are ne- 
cessarily precluded from arriving dX absolute truth. We never can 
exceed our capacities, which as being imperfect, forbids the hope of 
attaining to any assurance of absolute truth: this is the privilege of 
those beings alone, who are perfect in their intellectual constitution. 

It being then impossible to attain to absolute truth, or what is the 
same thing, to an absolute assurance of that truth, it is equally evident 
that we can never estimate our approximation towards absolute truth, 
unless it may be partially in the greater or less amount of consisten- 
cy that any particular subject of our investigation preserves in its 
relations to all other subjects of our knowledge or speculation. 
Where this consistency is very clear, we have a foundation for a 
high reUance upon its approximation towards absolute truth, and 
where it has not that considerable consistency with other subjects of 
our knowledge we can have little or no reliance on its actual cor- 
rectness. 

But though we neither know, and possibly may never know with 
absolute assurance, any thing concerning either the existence or the 
relations of mind or of matter, yet we do acquire a greater or less de- 
gree of knowledge concerning them as exhibited to us in their various 
phenomena, and which have that consistency in their appearemce or 
in their successions, that we learn experience by considering them. 
Hence it is, that however much a man may mistrust his senses or his 
understanding, he does acquire an amount of knowledge or expe- 
rience that enables him to regulate all his proceedings, whether phy- 
sical or intellectual, by the permanence of phenomena in which all 
things around him seem to be constituted. 



17 

The doubtfulness that is unavoidable in attempting to appreciate 
the actual value of our perceptions or judgment, has no rational con- 
nection with an unbelief in their reality nor in their relations. What 
we should infer from our doubtfulness is, that we ought to mistrust 
ourselves so much, as not to maintain our opinions with dogmatism, 
and to be very slow and deliberate in all our speculations so as to ac- 
cumulate the best or most probable evidence by which we may re- 
gulate our proceedings whether of thought or of action. 

I have no doubt that the preceding views may appear startling to 
some persons at first sight; but, nevertheless, they are true, and the 
only doctrine that is consistent with the continual improvement that 
takes place in the human mind, under the advantages of a continual- 
ly improving age. It by no means throws us into absolute scepti- 
cism, but simply places the understanding in that rational condition 
by which it can always correct its mistakes and attain to a more 
perfect degree of knov/ledge. The practical influence of the doc- 
trine is this, believe that to be true which experience, understanding, 
and conscience approve to be true, and act accordingly. But as we 
are most undeniably imperfect creatures, there must, therefore, una- 
voidably exist a greater or less amount of error in all our judgments. 
If a man will not allow he is liable to err, how can he ever become 
wiser or better? If a man assumes that he is infallible in his judg- 
ment, how can he improve? 

As long as we are conscious of growing in wisdom and knowledge, 
so long must we be convinced that we had been previously in error 
to a greater or less degree. How then can any one pretend to as- 
surance concerning the inferences of his perceptions or intellect, 
when every day informs us that both we and our fathers have been 
previously more or less in ignorance or error; and when shall any 
one ascertain when he is to cease to mistrust his amount of know- 
ledge or his accuracy of judgment? But this doubtfulness or mis- 
trust has nothing to do with ethics or Christianity; for whether all 
things be real or ideal, or whether our notions be imperfect or not, 
our moral obligations are the same. We are to do whatever we ap- 
prehend to be our duty in an honest conscience, and this capability 
no one was ever insane enough to deny. 

As to those hypocritical infidels who aflTect to cover their disre- 
gard of religious or moral obligations by asserting their inability to 

discern anv thing as being true or certain: nothing is more clear than 
3 



18 
that they of all men are the least doubtful. Such persons perform 
all the ordinary duties of citizen, parent, and friend; they judge of 
what is conducive to their happiness, and avoid, by all judicious pro- 
cedure, the occurrence of inconvenience or pain. If such a one does 
all this, and is not hindered from acting through doubts as to the 
correctness of his perceptions in estimating his interests, I appre- 
hend it must be the grossest hypocrisy to assert that he is unable to 
discern the truth or value of moral or religious subjects. At this 
very time such a person steadily follows that particular course that 
is pleasing to himself, and which without any doubt as to the pro- 
ceeding necessary to his gratification, he pursues in all consistency 
of plan and permanence of judgment to the end of his days. 

Such a proceeding as this is not the course of one doubtful in his 
views or opinions; but of one who is certain, for if he really was 
doubtful there would be vacillation and hesitation in his conduct, and 
though he might on the whole incline to one course rather than 
another, yet he would from time to time take an opposite direction. 
Though there is the greatest room for self-deception in all human 
thoughts and actions, I cannot but wonder that any one should be 
so stupid as to suppose they could justify their disregard of moral 
or religious obligations on the plea of philosophic scepticism as to the 
accuracy of their perceptions, when by the whole tenor of their proceed- 
ing they exhibit the fact of being most positive in their unbelief.* 

Having now called the reader's attention to the limited nature of 
our intellectual capacities and powers, and having sufficiently shown 
how continually we should mistrust ourselves in all our speculations 
and judgments, 1 deem it proper in the next place to make a few re- 

* Among the various acts of injustice done to the memory and writings of 
Hume, there is none more flagrant than the common notion that he taught this 
doctrine of scepticism as to the reality of our perceptions. To satisfy the 
reader I make the following extract: ^ 

''Should it here be asked me whether I be really one of those sceptics 
who hold that all is uncertain, and that our judgment is not in any thing pos- 
sessed of any measures of truth or falsehood, I should reply that this question 
is entirely superfluous, and that neither I nor any otlier person was ever sin- 
cerely and constantly of that opinion. Nature by an absolute and uncontrolla- 
ble necessity has determined us to judge as well as to breathe and feel; nor can 
we any more forbear viewing certain objects in a stronger and fuller light upon 
account of their customary connexion with a present impression, than we can 
hinder ourselves from thinking as long as we are awake, or seeing the surround- 
ing bodies when we turn our eyes towards them in broad sunshine. Whoever 
has taken the pains to refute the cavils of this total scepticism, has really dis- 
puted without an antagonist, and endeavored by arguments to establish a facul- 
ty which nature has antecedently implanted in the mind, and rendered una- 
voidable. — Treatise on Huma7i Nature, part iv. sec. 1st. 



19 

marks concerning the ability we have of acting according to our ca- 
pacities and powers, be they what they may; or, in other words, to 
inquire whether is man a free agent, acting by his own will, or 
whether is he under the influences of other principles that deprive 
him of liberty and force him to act by necessity? 

The controversy on the subject of liberty or necessity I apprehend 
is capable of a very simple resolution, however much the subject has 
been perplexed by the speculations of those, who, under cover of this 
question, propose to vindicate some mode of life that they are desi- 
rous of maintaining. This object though artfully kept out of sight 
in the controversy, has, nevertheless, suggested every position they 
take on the subject of liberty or necessity. 

It is sufficiently evident to every one, that man is a being of limit- 
ed power and capacity. We are surrounded on all sides with ob- 
jects whether physical or intellectual, that oppose themselves to our 
exertions, and remain immovable or incomprehensible to every suc- 
cessive generation of men. We are, in other words, restricted by 
our physical and intellectual constitution, to modes of life and exer- 
cises of our intelligence, within certain bounds imposed upon us by 
our Creator. He has announced to us the duties we are to perform 
under the influence of that peculiar organization which he has seen fit 
to confer upon human nature. 

Thus far man may be said to be subject to necessity. We have 
received a certain constitution from our Creator which is excited 
into action by those objects which he has appointed as exciting causes, 
and which continue to act upon us as long as our life endures. 

But at the same time that we are thus constituted, we are by the 
divine appointment, free agents, at liberty within the bounds of our 
organization, to take those courses of life or to adopt those opinions 
which are approved by our judgment, be they what they may, and 
which may exhibit a very great variety of character as compared 
among themselves. Thus, for instance, we must eat, drink, and be 
clothed, or we die: — but we are at liberty to appease or gratify 
these necessities, by a great variety of meats and drinks, and of the 
various articles used for raiment. There is no necessity which im- 
pels us to choose one more than the other, but we make our selec- 
tion according to our judgment or inclination, and which we may 
also resist if we please, and live in abstinence from every thing 
grateful as long as life may last. 



20 

The intellectual' part of our organization is precisely under the 
same regulations: it is susceptible of various impulses by which the 
individual is excited to those acts in which some peculiar gratifica- 
tion consists, whether it be in action or repose, or in any modifica- 
tion of them. The means of gratifying the intellectual principle are 
many and various, and the will is at liberty to adopt which ever the 
understanding may prefer. 

But here I shall be told by the advocates of the doctrine of neces- 
sity, that the will has no such liberty whether in choosing its animal 
or intellectual gratification, but that we are impelled by motives to 
take a particular course, which is always determined by the strong- 
est motive and not by any free will or choice of our own. 

Now, however plausible this argument may seem, there cannot be 
the least difficulty in showing that it is a simple sophism, whose only 
force consists in the equivocal meaning given to the term strongest 
motive. To show this, let us ask, what is meant by the term strong- 
est motive; does it imply the wisest, the most prudent, most ju- 
dicious, most conscientious, or most grateful motive? It does not 
imply any such meaning. The strongest motive of the Necessitari- 
ans implies, that it is the prevailing motive, no matter whether it 
be good or bad, wise or foolish, beneficial or injurious. 

Since men are undeniably influenced by motives to act in some 
manner or other, so it doesnot signify what motive induces the action, 
that motive the Necessitarians assert, is the strongest. But why 
strongest? — why, because it prevails. Strongest motive, then, is 
clearly synonymous with prevailing motive. 

The use of the word strongest, then, is a begging of the question, 
and its force as an argument with the Necessitarians, lies in the 
equivocation of implying prevailing. As every action of man is in- 
duced by some motive or other, so some motive or other must pre- 
vail over other motives. This we all admit must be the case: the 
advocates of liberty insist the motive prevails, because we, by our 
own free agency, choose to take such and such a course, and we 
are free to act or to let it alone, according to the estimation w-e make 
of its value whether as a matter of gratification or duty. 

The advocates of necessity say the motive prevails, because it is 
the strongest. Now if they will define strongest, to imply any other 
meaning than prevailing, it can be proved against them on ail sides 
that men do not follow the strongest motive, and if they give it the 



21 

significance o^ prevailing, then their argument amounts to this that 
a man will follow whatever he will follow, that he will do whatever 
he will do, which is a conclusion that no man can deny, but which 
it would be absurd in the last degree to consider as justifying the 
doctrine of necessity. 

The consciousness of our being free agents is as distinct as any 
other consciousness whatever; and the evidence of the fact is to be 
found every where in the universal history of mankind. In every 
age we have testimony concerning the power of conscience in all 
those cases where men have abused their liberty by doing what they 
know they ought not to have done. For this abuse of their liberty 
they fear the judgment of those divinities who are supposed capable 
of reading the human heart, and who, therefore, cannot be deceived 
by any of those hypocrital assertions with which men may attempt 
to justify their crimes before their fellow creatures, by pleading an 
inability to have avoided them. 

I know not that I can urge the argument in favor of the liberty 
of human action with greater force on the mere philosophic ques- 
tion; but with those who admit the divine institution of Christianity, 
nothing can be more distinctly stated to us than this fact. The Scrip- 
tures inform us, that God requires acts of faith and practice from us; 
and that we may be induced to perform those acts, certain blessings 
or rewards are promised if we are obedient, and certain punishments 
are denounced against us if we be disobedient. In this exposition of 
reward and punishment which pervades the whole Scripture from the 
beginning to the end, it is evident that the Creator has constituted 
us free agents, and regards us as being at liberty to follow any course 
we please within the limitations of that constitution that he has be- 
stowed upon our nature. Consistently with this scheme, men are 
called on to do what God has required of them, and they have been noti- 
fied that the day is coming when they shall be judged of their acts. 
No other proof of our free agency can be required by the Christian 
than this, for the supposition of a judgment, without the doctrine of 
liberty or free agency, would be absurd to the last degree. 

The doctrine of the Calvinists which would at first sisht seem to 
be connected with that of necessity, will furnish no support to the 
philosophic doctrine, for they distinctly admit free agency in human 
actions. Thus in the Confession of Faith (art. Free Will) it is stated, 
"God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty that it 



22 

is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined 
to good or evil."* 

It now only remains for us to bring our proposed subject of in. 
vestigation before the reader, whether as a sceptic or as a half-in- 
structed Christian, in that unobjectionable manner that we may be 
able to estimate the truth or the falsity of its claim to be considered 
a system of divine constitution, without assuming any thing that 
might be termed a begging of the question. 

The theory of Christianity in its great extent, and as involving 
all its special details, is as follows: The Creator of all things is re- 
ported to have announced to mankind, through the medium of cer- 
tain individuals, that he has made the universe and all that it con- 
tains, and that he preserves and sustains all things both by a gene- 
ral and particular providence. 

From man as an intellectual and moral being, the Creator has re- 
quired certain acts whether of faith or of practice, which, as we 
comply with or reject, so we are taught we shall be happy or mise- 
rable in eternity. 

The revelations that the Creator is reported to have made upon 
these subjects, having been recorded by men, constitute that volume 
denominated the Bible or Sacred Scriptures. 

But the doctrines announced by the Scriptures, are not address- 
ed to us on the mere question of whether we will obey or disobey 
these asserted revelations of the Creator, they are addressed to us 
as rational and intelligent beings, contemplated to undergo probation 
before our Creator as free agents, and as such, free to think right, 
free to think incorrectly, free to do right, free to do wrong. Conse- 
quently all our speculations on religious subjects, be they what they 
may, are neither more nor less than one part of that actual proba- 
tion to which we have been subjected by the Creator. 

This undeniable circumstance of our probationary condition, if 

* The most capable metaphysical writer that I am acquainted with, who ad- 
vocated the Calvinistic doctrine, is the pious and learned Jonatlian Edwards, 
formerly President of Princeton College. As many persons had taken up the 
notion that he maintained the philosophical doctrine of necessity' in his Trea- 
tise on the Will, he has vindicated himself from such an imputation, in a let- 
ter addressed to a clergyman, which is printed at tlie end of his Treatise on the 
Will. "Nothing," says he, "that I maintain, supposes tliat men are at all hin- 
dered by any fatal necessity from doing and even willing and choosing as they 
please, with full freedom; yea with the highest de2;reeof liberty that "ever was 
thought of, or that ever could possibly enter into the heart of any man to con- 
ceive." 



23 

properly considered, will enable us to correct many false views with 
which the subject of Christianity has been regarded, as well as to 
point out the rational course we should pursue that we may be able 
fairly to ascertain its actual truth. 

Now in what manner shall we proceed to ascertain whether Chris- 
tianity be of divine appointment or not? 

Are we to judge of the Scriptures as an asserted revelation from 
God, by estimating them as compared with our ideas of his nature 
and attributes? Or, are we to judge of them as writings addressed 
to our understanding as human beings, and which are to be received 
or rejected by those principles of truth, according to which we meas- 
ure the credibility of any human communication? 

Nothing can be more different than these two modes of proceed- 
ing, and yet nothing seems less distinguished by men in their schemes 
of investigation; for, as it appears to me in the majority of instances 
they pursue the wrong course. As it is necessary that we should 
with the greatest possible accuracy, determine which of these two 
schemes we must adopt in making our proposed investigation, I 
shall exhibit the very different nature of the arguments we must re- 
sort to, according to either mode of proceeding. 

If all knowledge of God, his providence, our future state, &;c. 
has arisen solely from the revelation which God has seen fit to make 
to mankind on these subjects, and that any knowledge of him and his pro- 
vidence is altogether unattainable by human reason, then we can only 
judge of the truth of the dogmas stated in the Scriptures, by the 
credibility of those persons who have announced themselves his 
messengers as communicating to us those particular subjects of relig- 
ious faith. 

But if, as the deists contend, and as no small number of Chris- 
tians have admitted, there is a certain light of nature that informs 
us of God and his attributes to a greater or less degree, then it is 
perfectly justifiable that the God of the Scriptures, and the dogmas 
of our religion, shall be judged to a greater or less degree, by that 
knowledge which we are asserted to derive from this clear light of 
nature. 

It being then sufficiently evident that tlicrc arc two theories of 
means by which the credibility of the Christian religion is to be de- 
termined, and which are directly opposite to each other, it is impos- 
sible for us to begin an examination of the truth of Christianity until 



24 

we have ascertained which is the true way, and how far it is correct 
in principle and capable of apphcation. 

To enable us to appreciate this subject, we must necessarily ad- 
vert to the various sources from whence all human knowledge upon 
religious subjects may have been derived, and then carefully deter- 
mine the true value of the deductions we are capable of making from 
such data or principles; for these principles of knowledge are evi- 
dently the tests to be used in our proposed analysis, and unless we 
fully understand the true value of our tests, it is impossible we can 
judge of the merits of the subject to v.hich they are applied. 

The sources from which men derive the arguments or objections, 
by which they approve or reject Christianity, are evidently the fol- 
lowing: 

The evidences of Natural Theology, 
The deductions of what is termed Natural Religion, 
The theory of Moral Distinctions, 

The credibility or incredibility of human testimony as to the truth of 
facts which are asserted to have taken place. 

Now before we can undertake to estimate the truth or falsehood 
of Christianity, it is of essential importance that we first ascertain 
the actual value of the principles by which we are to make our de- 
cision. In other words we must accurately determine the following 
particulars: 

What is the actual amount of knowledge that we derive from the 
study of Natural Theology? 

What is the actual value of those principles that constitute the 
Theory of Natural Religion? 

What is the true theory of Moral Distinctions, i. e. what is it 
that makes one action to be rioht and another wroni?? 

What is it that constitutes a man a credible witness, and what is 
it that makes us mistrust and reject the testimony of another? 

Now the value of these tests of the truth or flilsehood of Christi- 
anity must be carefully ascertained themselves before we can at all 
apply them, for unless we have correct ideas of their actual value, 
we shall certainly make an erroneous judgment from their improper 
application. 

To us of the present day there can be no great diiTiculty in coming 
to a conclusion on the actual merits of these tests, for they are sub- 
jects that belong to the intellectual history of mankind, and have been 



25 

forages discussed with all the acuteness that philosophy, under every 
possible difference of opinion, has brought to bear upon such partic- 
ulars. We therefore have little else to do than determine the truth 
of other men's speculations on these subjects, and thus ascertain the 
actual value of the principles themselves. 

A distinct apprehension of the actual value of those principles or 
tests by which we are to judge of the truth or falsehood of Christi- 
anity, does not involve any necessity of ascertaining any other fact 
than the actual amount or value of the knowledge that men do pos- 
sess on such subjects. Considered as a test of Christianity, it is just 
as important for us to ascertain that any particular subject of ethics 
or metaphysics is incomprehensible or capable of several different 
solutions, as it is to be able to demonstrate it in any one view, with 
all the clearness of the Q. E. D. of EucHd. For our proceeding is 
only based on the correct application of the actual amount of our 
knowledge on such subjects, and hence it is as important for us to 
be assured of our real ignorance or uncertainty on particular subjects, 
as it is to know that we understand other particulars, distinctly and 
clearly. 

Now there can be no doubt that the most erroneous judgments 
have been made upon the Christian religion, whether by deist or 
Christian, in consequence of their inattention to this preliminary 
analysis of the tests they have applied to this subject, for it is evident 
that as there is a great difference among men concerning the actual 
value of the tests themselves, so the conclusions of different individ- 
uals on the subject of Christianity will differ from each other ac- 
cording to the different values they assign to the tests used by them, 
and which though similar in name, have, in other respects, little if any 
actual resemblance. To exhibit this subject with greater distinct- 
ness, I remark, that the controversy between the deists and the 
Christians on the question of the actual truth or falsehood of the 
Christian religion, is never restricted to the discussion of the specific 
question whether Christianity be of divine institution or not, but it 
is, from the beginning to the end, intermingled with controversies as 
to the real origin of religious dofrmas, the actual nature of moral dis- 
tinctions, and various principles of metaphysical science. 

Now upon these subjects there are some three, four, or five differ- 
ent theories of origin, and of their absolute or relative values; conse- 
quently, great confusion and distraction must be the result of a dis- 
4 



26 

ciission where different writers at the very time that they profess to 
analyse a difficult subject, carry on a hot controversy upon the dif- 
ferent values which they consider belong to the tests or principles 
by which the analysis itself is conducted. 

Before 1 commence with the proper speculations of this Essay, let 
me urge the reader's attention to the fact, that an investigation of 
the truth of Christianity, conducted as it should be with a strict re- 
gard to its merits, requires the serious and concentrated application 
of all his intellectual powers, and is not to be determined by hasty 
or superficial examination. The common observation that truth is 
simple and easily understood is very erroneous, for the abundant ex- 
perience of all past time shows that however simple the truth may 
be when it is fairly ascertained, yet the steps by which we attain to 
that knowledge, are very often tedious and exhausting, and only ac- 
complished by much study and perseverance. But without speaking 
further in general terms, let me urge the following illustration. 

If a man entirely ignorant of geometry be informed, that it is an 
easy matter to ascertain the heighth of an inaccessible object by a 
trigonometrical calculation, he may or may not credit the speaker 
according to the opinion he may have of his integrity and regard 
for truth. But should he require that the correctness of the opera- 
tion should be demonstrated to his satisfaction, what amount of time 
and study would be necessary to clearly impress the truth on his mind, 
was he indeed desirous of comprehending the rationale of the process. 
But if we may suppose the individual to have a prejudice against ad- 
mitting the correctness of the operation, how could the demonstra- 
tor overpower the ignorance of an unwiffing temper, which, instead 
of co-operating with the teacher's endeavor, was more solicitous to 
embarrass and perplex him. 

In such a case the truth can be mathematically demonstrated, and 
any one continuing in ignorance must be so eitlrer from mental imbe- 
cility, or from downright wilfulness. 

If then it requires time, patience, and application, to comprehend 
things which are capable of mathematical demonstration, it certainly 
cannot but require much more of such qualifications to enable us to 
conclude rightly on religious subjects. The very theory of the sys- 
tem representing man to be in a state of moral and intellectual trial, 
absolutely requires him to be continually exercised in intellectual and 
moral subjects as the very purpose of his being, and which only ter- 
minates with our ceasing to live. 



AN IMPARTIAL EXPOSITION OF THE 

EVIDENCES AND DOCTRINES 

OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 



CHAPTER I. 

INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE VALUE OP THE PEINCIPLES OF 
NATURAL THEOLOGY. 

If the reader has hitherto considered me unnecessarily soHcitous 
that the principles by which the merits of Christianity are to be ap- 
preciated, shall be themselves most rigidly determined before we un- 
dertake to make our proposed investigation, he will now, I apprehend, 
justify my solicitude on that subject, when I ask, in what manner 
must we commence an analysis of those first principles upon whose 
clearly ascertained value, the absolute importance of our future in- 
vestigation depends. 

Thus for our very commencement. In what manner shall we 
proceed to investigate the value of the deductions to be made from the 
study of Natural Theology, which is the only source from which our 
theological views are derived, independent of those principles, which 
have been asserted to be formal revelations from God himself 

In what manner shall we begin a disquisition on the merits of 
Natural Theology, which shall be so impartial in its statements, that 
both Christian and deist will be satisfied with the fairness of the 
manner in which the subject shall be introduced. 

The Christian cannot admit any statement of this subject that 
either directly or indirectly implies that the human race have ever 
been ignorantof the fact of God's existence, and of our religious obli- 
gations to serve him. On the contrary, they insist that when God 
made our first parents he made a formal revelation ofliimself to 
them, and which has been repeated since at various times. 

But the deist or sceptic cannot admit such a statement, for it 
would be evidently conceding the contested point. They contend 
that natural religion has arisen among men in consequence of their 
discerning the merits of natural theology, or from various secondary 



28 

causes whicli many writers have undertaken to exhibit to us in due 
order of their successive origin. 

The difficulty, therefore, of putting this subject in a fair position 
for investigation, is very evident. 

Some persons, aware of their inabiUty to state this subject in a 
manner equally acceptable to both Christian and deist, have at- 
tempted to accomplish it by supposing a young man of awakened in- 
telligence, independent of any religious theory, to be led from step 
to step, through all that succession of natural and moral phenomena 
by which he is surrounded, until he attains to a true judgment on 
the facts of the case. But it will be soon evident that this supposed 
unprejudiced young man is the author of the treatise in disguise, and 
consequently if he be a Christian, the whole discourse will tend to 
justify the theory of Christianity: if the writer be a deist, the whole 
drift of his argument will show, that the author and the supposed 
novice agree very harmoniously in making an exhibition more or 
less hostile to the theory of Christianity. 

It therefore seems almost impossible to commence an investiga- 
tion of the merits of natural theology upon any scheme that is not 
objectionable on the ground that the writer regards the subject under 
the influence of preconceived opinions which will more or less affect 
the true merits of the subject. 

After having been much perplexed with the various expedients 
that may be suggested to remove the objections alluded to in the 
preceding paragraph, it has ocurrred to me that the only manner 
by which we can obviate such objections, will be by first discussing 
the value of the theory of natural religion under this unexceptionable 
introduction of the subject, viz. that religion has prevailed among 
mankind from immemorial time, and that no one shall assume in the 
first instance how it originated. 

By such a proceeding it appears to me that all objections are re- 
moved, for there can be no difficulty in ascertaining what are the 
fundamental dogmas of this so called natural religion, and we then 
can, without any prejudice, proceed to ascertian the real value of the 
evidence or argument by which the dogmas of natural religion are 
sustained. As the only evidence to be received is that derived from 
natural theology, we shall, I apprehend, by such a procedure, be able 
to estimate, with all fairness, the value of natural theology, at the same 
time that we ascertain the true value of the theory of natural religion. 



29 

Our actual knowledge concerning the origin of religious dogmas, 
may be stated in a few words. The past history of mankind, exclu- 
sive of the bible, does not communicate to us any information, how 
the theory of religious obligation has originated. The most ancient 
records of human transactions, in every instance, exhibit mankind 
as then living under the influence of religious institutions, and the 
latest discoveries of modern enterprise, in hitherto unexplored re- 
gions of the earth, inform us of a similar religious condition of things, 
with every newly discovered nation. Hence it seems to be incon- 
testable, that no nation, or people, have ever yet been discovered, 
who were destitute of the theory of religious obligation, and of which 
the following are the essential dogmas. 

1st. That there are gods, creators, and governors of the world, 
who rule all things, with both general and particular providence. 

2d. That all men are responsible beings before the gods, and ac- 
countable for their actions. 

3d. That the soul of man is immortal, and that after the death of 
the body, it shall exist in either happiness or misery, according to 
the manner they may have lived in the present life. 

These are the true dogmas of natural religion, as it is called, and 
their universal acceptance with all nations of men, seem to leave no 
objection as to the distinctness with which we have stated them. In- 
stead of speculating how these dogmas originated among men, we 
shall alone inquire into the value of the proofs or arguments by which 
they are sustained. By such a procedure, the atheist, the deist, and 
the Christian are placed in the field of controversy, under equal ad- 
vantages, and the several arguments they may advance, can be 
brought forward with their utmost force, and any honest and intelli- 
gent man may be enabled to decide whether the particular dogmas 
we have enumerated, as constituting the theory of natural religion, 
are capable of being demonstrated; whether they are but of doubtful 
value, or whether they may be only mere conjectures, destitute of 
any rational foundation. And according as we come to our conclu- 
sion, so we determine the true value of natural theology; for natural 
religion can have no other foundation. 

As the primary dogma of natural religion is, that there exists a 
God, or gods, the creators, and providential governors of all things, 
our first investigation must be directed to ascertain the actual vahie 
of those arguments by which this dogma is sustained, and which for 



30 

our own convenience, we shall discuss as if it implied but a single 
deity. 

From the earliest record that we have of a philosophical discus- 
sion of this subject, down to the present time, it appears that the 
great majority of wise men have inferred, that the construction of 
the material world, conveys distinct evidence of the fact of the ex- 
istence of God. And that conclusion seems so direct, that we might, 
on first thoughts, wonder how some acute and intelligent men have 
held a contrary opinion. 

There is, however, nothing unaccountable in this great difference 
of judgment, for, notwithstanding the powers of the human mind, 
man is but a being of imperfect intelligence, and in consequence, 
very liable to err. Prejudices, false though ingenious reasonings, 
and the distraction of mind that ensues from confounding principles 
together, which should be entirely separated, all concur to mislead 
us to that degree that no one need be surprised that errors and mis- 
judgments are, to a greater or less degree, implicated with all hu- 
man intellectual investigations. Upon no subject has there been a 
greater amount of error and misjudgment manifested than on the 
one we now have undertaken to scrutinize, and which we apprehend 
we are able from having carefully estimated the correct or incor- 
rect proceeding of various writers, to place in such a point of view, 
as may enable us to attain to a correct judgment on the subject. 

Before we enter upon any investigation concerning the existence 
of God, it is necessary that the significance of the term be distinctly 
stated, for from not attending to this particular, men have been 
thrown into great confusion of ideas, and indeed sometimes to such 
a degree as to vitiate their whole discourse on this subject. In wri- 
ting abstractedly upon the nature of God, men very inconsiderately 
attach to that term, those peculiar ideas of his attributes, with which 
we habitually regard the Supreme Deity, according as we may be 
Jews, Christians, or Pagans. This is evidently wrong, for the God 
of nature exists the same every where, and alike to every one, and 
not according to one system more than another. At this stage of 
our investigation, we can only regard the word God, as an abstract 
term, expressive of a being whose existence involves no other signi- 
fication than that of mind or intelligence, operating with power in- 
finitely greater than we can conceive to belong to a human being. 
Such we must consider the term God to imply, otherwise we could 



31 

not discuss the question of his existence. He must be considered 
capable of making things such as they arc exhibited to our senses, 
and as having power to sustain them in their actual existence, but we 
have no right at this stage of our investigation, to presume any thing 
further upon his nature or attributes. 

Having made this correction, let us now proceed with our sub- 
ject. That the visible universe, in all its prodigious extent, owes its 
creation, or at least its present constitution, to an operation of mind 
or intelligence, combined with vast power of acting, seems to be 
the only fair and reasonable deduction we can make from every pos- 
sible examination of the things appreciable by our senses. 

We cannot direct our attention to a single portion of the material 
universe, from the greatest masses, down to the smallest particles of 
matter, where we shall not observe distinct marks of determinate or- 
ganization, and a subjection to fixed unvarying laws. In vegetable 
and animal existence, besides the general proof which their organi- 
zation affords us, we see peculiar adaptations to ends and purposes, 
which we have the testimony of some thousands of years have never 
varied from those conditions of being, under which they are now ex- 
hibited to our senses. 

We shall not make any particular exhibition of this subject, the 
facts themselves must be studied at large, either in the visible world, 
or in the writings of those who have published treatises expressly on 
this subject.* Not only are the facts of the case necessarily exclu- 
ded from this Essay by their mere bulk, but I apprehend no proof is 
required, for the atheists themselves freely admit the facts as far as 
we can be justified to urge them as mere facts. 

As far as I have been able to examine the writings of the later 
atheists, I do not perceive that they at all dispute the particular or- 
ganization or adaptation of material things to particular purposes 
and uses, nor the permanence of the laws by which they are gov- 
erned. On the contrary, they admit them absolutely, and attempt 
to explain the harmony, order, and permanence of all visible phe- 
nomena, by the theory of a necessary fitness and propriety of things 
in themselves inherently to such purposes. This admitted fitness 
and propriety in existing things, they allege, has either existed 

* The best sing^le work that I know of on this subject, is Paley's Natural 
TheoWy. But I restrict this commendation to the iirst twenty-three chap- 
ters. The remaining chapters of that book I cannot approve of for reasons 
which will be made apparent to the reader in the course of our discussion. 



32 

eternally, or that successive changes and modifications in tinrie, have 
resulted in the establishment of things as we now see them. 

Thus, Baron Holbach remarks, in his "Good Sknse,'' 29 — "We 
are incessantly told to acknowledge and revere the hand of God in 
so wonderful a work as the human machine: I readily confess that 
the human machine appears to me surprising; but as man exists in 
nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation is above the 
power of nature." 

Again, in page 30, he remarks, "Nature is a word used to denote 
the immense assemblage of beings, various matters, infinite combi- 
nations and diversified motions that we behold. All bodies orga- 
nized or unorganized are necessary effects of certain causes. Noth- 
ing in nature can happen by chance. Every thing is subject to 
fixed laws. 

"One atom of matter cannot meet another by chance. This meet- 
ing is the effect of permanent laics which cause every being necessa- 
rily to act as it does, and hinder it from acting otherwise in given 
circumstances. 

^^It is not cAance that has placed the sun in the centre of our plan- 
etary system. It is by its oton essence, that the substance of which 
it is composed must occupy that place, and thence be diifused to vivi- 
fy the beings inhabiting the planets. 

" The universe is always in order. It cannot be in disorder. The 
bodies, causes, and things which this world contains, necessarily act 
in the manner in which we see them act, whether we approve or 
disapprove of the effects. 

"To be astonished that a certain order reigns in the world is to be 
surprised that the same causes constantly produce the same effect. 
To wonder at the order of nature is to wonder that any thing can 
exist: it is to be surprised at one's own existence." 

The facts of the case, as far as any mere description of material 
phenomena can be made, being therefcae admitted, it is evident 
there is no dispute concerning them. As both the atheist and theist 
admit them to be correctly described, the dispute is alone, whether 
we shall refer the present existing propriety and fitness of things to 
the energetic production of a divine intelligent being, or whether we 
shall refer them to a mere natural propriety and fitness of things in 
themselves, altogether irrespective of any operation of intelligent 
power. 



33 

As respects the atheistical theory of explanation, even if it be 
really the true one, it cannot be received by the human understand- 
ing, for we have not the capacity to conceive of an eternal exist- 
ence to the things of our visible world. Neither have we an ability 
to conceive of activity or of motion, but from the impulse of a di- 
recting intelligence, whether as acting directly or under some deter- 
minate appointment of secondary causes. 

The atheistical theory, therefore, is not only in direct opposition 
to all experience, but its hypothesis is not even comprehensible in 
its bare possibility. We do not mean to say, that we do not com- 
prehend the significance of the words and terms which it employs, 
but of the possibility of an existence of things such as it attempts 
to describe. 

The theory that ascribes the creation of all things, and the laws 
by which they are sustained, to the energy of an intelligent, power- 
ful being or God, on the contrary, is not only distinctly comprehen- 
sible, but is indeed the only one that explains, in a manner, suit- 
able to our capacities, the order, harmony, and proportion, by which 
all things have been made, and why they continue to endure in har- 
mony and proportion. 

Difficult as it may be for man to conceive rightly of the nature 
and existence of God, as Paine very correctly observes in his Age 
of Reason, "he does arrive at the belief of it from the tenfold great- 
er difficuly of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to 
conceive that space can have no limit, but is more difficult to con- 
ceive it to have a limit. It is difficult beyond the power of man to 
conceive an eternal diiration of what we call time, but it is more im- 
possible to conceive a time when there shall be no more time. In 
like manner of reasoning, every thing we behold carries in itself the 
eternal evidence that it could not make itself. Every man is an evi- 
dence to himself that he did not make himself; neither could his father 
make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race make them- 
selves; neither could any tree, plant or animal make themselves, and it 
is the conviction arising from this evidence that carries us on, as it 
were by necessity, to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a 
nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the 
power of which all things exist; and this first cause man calls God."* 

* As this quotation from Paine is very superior in its philosophy to any other 
observation made in his works, I cannot doubt but he has taken it Irom 
some other writer, thono;h I know not whom. 1 apinchend it is; a paraphiase 
of a statement made by Hume. 
5 



34 

With this great advantage in favor of the theory tliat assigns a 
divine intelligence or God as the creator and sustainer of all material 
things, one might ask with surprise, by what means has the atheis- 
tical theory been supported from times past to the present, when 
men of no small intellectual discernment yet unhesitatingly avow 
themselves to be atheists. 

I believe the cause of this to be, that in this controversy there has 
been heretofore two very different principles discussed together as if 
they were but one, and by the confusion thus made of the two to- 
gether, though entirely different; the atheist has received a seeming 
support to his scheme to which I apprehend he is not entitled in the 
least degree. 

I have been led to infer this from the tenor of all the atheistical 
arguments I have been able to examine, and when afler deliberately 
studying every position they occupied, I have alone found that in- 
stead of confuting the simple theory of the existence and power of a 
divine being as the creator of all things, they have attempted to es- 
tablish themselves by their attacks upon the moral attributes ascrib- 
ed by the theists to the Creator, and have with more or less inge- 
nuity shown that the material universe was very far short of perfec- 
tion, and that moral and physical evil was present in all things. They 
infer from this, in the first place, that God could not be good, and 
then because he was not discerned to be good, they held the deduc- 
tion to be sound that there could be no God at all. Hence instead 
of founding their theory upon any analysis of material things, they 
derive their arguments exclusively from those moral and metaphysical 
objections that may be made against every scheme of theism. The 
undeniable fact of the harmony and propriety with which all mate- 
rial phenomena exist, they assume to be not inconsistent with their 
metaphysical and moral objections against theism. But they do 
not offer the least argument to justify their doctrine, by any evi- 
dence derived from the material constitution of the natural world. 
That I may distinctly exhibit what are the true foundations of the 
atheistical theory, I shall lay before the reader a systematic enun- 
ciation of atheistical dogmas, by one of the most eminent as well as 
latest promulgators of such doctrines. 

Baron Holbach, in his Essay entitled "Good Sense," represents the 
real force of atheism in the exhibition he has made of the theory 
of theism, or of Christianity, where ho attaches to every affirmation 
the uthcisticul objection. His words arc as follow: 



35 

"There is a vast empire governed by a monarch whose strange 
conduct is very proper to confound the minds of his subjects. He 
wishes to be known, loved, respected, obeyed, but never shows him- 
self to his subjects, and every thing conspires to render uncertain the 
ideas formed of his character." 

"The people subjected to his power, have of the character and 
laws of their invisible sovereign, such ideas only as his ministers 
give them. They, however, confess that they have no idea of their 
master; that his ways are impenetrable, his views and nature totally 
incomprehensible, &;c. They utter, concerning him, not a single 
word that does not immediately confute itself. They call him su- 
premely good, yet there is no one who does not complain of his de- 
crees. They suppose him infinitely wise, and under his administra- 
tion every thing appears to contradict reason and good sense. They 
extol his justice, and the best of his subjects are generally the least 
favored. They assert he sees every thing, yet his presence avails 
nothing. He is, they say, the friend of order, yet throughout his 
dominions all is in confusion and disorder. He makes all for himself, 
and the events seldom answer his designs. He foresees every thing, 
but he cannot prevent any thing. He impatiently suflx^rs ofience, 
yet gives every one the power of offending him. Men admire the 
wisdom and perfection of his works, yet his works full of imperfec- 
tion arc short of duration. He is continually doing and undoing, 
repairing what he has made, but is never pleased with his work. 
In all his undertakings he proposes only his own glory, yet is never 
glorified. His only end is the happiness of his subjects, and his sub- 
jects for the most part, want necessaries. Those whom he seems to 
favor are generally least satisfied with their fate. Almost all appear 
in perpetual revolt against a master, whose greatness they never 
cease to admire, whoso wisdom to extol, whose goodness to adore, 
whose justice to fear, and whose laws to reverence, though never 
obeyed." 

"This empire,''^ says Baron Holbach, "?*s the WORLD, this mon- 
arch is GOD, his ministers are the PRIESTS, his subjects MAN- 
KIND." 

This manner of reasoning as far as I have examined the atiieis- 
tical writers is not peculiar to Baron Holbach, but it is common to 
all, and the preceding extract, conveys the full force and substance 
of all their arguments wherever I have seen them stated. 



36 

The reader, who has closely regarded the specific statements and 
objections of Baron Holbach, as just quoted, cannot fail to observe 
that it is alone through moral or metaphysical objections to the 
opinions of the theists, that the atheists come to the conclusion that 
there can be no God. 

Baron Holbach does not determine any thing concerning the spe- 
cific question, whether there be a Demiurgus or Fabricator to the 
universe, but he has arraigned him for not being wise and good, and 
for not governing the world by a manifest providence and exhibition 
of his sovereignty. And, therefore, because Baron Holbach does not 
discern such particulars in the visible world, he denies that there 
can be any God. 

But our controversy with the atheists is not upon such points as 
are discussed by Holbach and others, as must be evident from the 
statement we shall now make. 

In contending that the material universe in all its extent has been 
framed by a being exercising intelligence and power, we do not in 
the least degree, concern ourselves whether that being or intelligent 
principle possesses goodness, or whether he exercises any direct 
providence. It is indifferent to our argument, whether God be es- 
teemed good or not, and if the atheist think the concession of any 
importance, I am willing to grant that God is not good, so far as we 
can discern his proceeding in the natural world. All our concern at 
present, is to ascertain whether he made the world, and whether 
there is not impressed upon his works such indications of design and 
skill, that shall enable us to come directly to this conclusion, that 
the world has been created by a powerful and intelligent being. 

It is unnecesssry for us to analyse the various constitutions under 
which all created things are presented to our eyes, for the atheists 
admit them to be such as we would state them to be, as mere facts. 
Their theory of the eternal fitness and propriety of things, to 
particular ends and purposes, declares expressly that very condition 
of things which we would endeavor to estabhsh, by the exhibition 
of proof. 

But what argument can the atheist advance, to induce us to be- 
lieve that this harmony, fitness, and propriety of things, arises from 
some inherent power in nature, to produce such a condition, irres- 
pective of an exertion of mind or intelligence] 

The atheistical supposition is gratuitous in every respect, destitute 



37 
€ven of the semblance of proof, and incomprehensible in its possi- 
bility. We therefore reject it altogether, and prefer to adopt the 
theory that assigns the construction of all things to an operation of 
designing power. This theory we can comprehend, and it is con- 
sistent with our experience, however much it may be clogged with 
difficult considerations. Our ideas may be very incorrect on the 
subject, but as long as we can refer any fabrication or machinery, 
made by'mah, to human intelligence, so we can, without difficulty, 
refer the construction of the material universe, to the designing 
skill of an intelligent being, or God, whom we can easily conceive 
to be infinitely superior to man, both in his intelligence and power.* 
We, therefore, hold it utterly absurd to receive the atheistical 
theory in explanation of the harmony and propriety with which all 
material things exist, when we have a very intelligible opinion at 
hand, by which we can explain every such circumstance. Nor 
can we see what possible objection the atheist can array against our 
conclusion, after we have detached the moral attributes of God, from 
any connection with the point in controversy. The atheist may, if 
he can, demonstrate that God is not good, but it will not follow, 
that therefore God has not made all things; for the existence of 
mind or intelligence, combined with power to act, certainly does 
not imply also the possession of goodness, or other benevolent at- 
tributes, as all human experience, our only guide on this point, 
sufficiently attests. 

The only matter, I presume, the atheist may contest, is, that God 
is considered by every one to be essentially good, and that under 
this universal acceptance, no one can be justified in considering his 
attributes to be otherwise. Therefore, in conceding that God may 
not be good, that I, in fact, yield the argument: — in answer to this, 1 
would observe, that I do not say that God is not good, but that we 
do not know, as yet, that he is good, and further, I maintain that 
the question of his goodness, does not, in the least degree, belong to 
the controversy, whether the material universe was made by an 
operation of mind or intelligence, or whether it arose out of the ne- 

* "The wisdom that appears in any work of human contrivance, is incom- 
parably less than that which discovers itsell", in the structure and use of or- 
ganized natural bodies, animal, or vegetable. A man, with his hand, can make 
no machine so admirable, as the hand itself. Nor can any of those notions by 
which we trace out human reason, approach the skill and contrivance of those 
wonderful motions of the heart, brain, and other vital parts, which do not de- 
pend upon the will of man."— jBis/io/> Berkley's Alciphron. 



38 

cessary fitness of things, for their present states of existence; and I 
ntiaintain as far as I can comprehend things, that the character of 
the Creator has nothing to do with an investigation, that concerns 
the specific fact, whether any particular thing was made by an in- 
telHgent being, or whether it made itself, or has existed from all 
eternity. 

If skill, design, and purpose is apparently manifest in the con- 
struction of any thing, it is evident from every principle by which 
human reason can be guided, that such an object was made by an 
intelligent being, for it is impossible that we can conceive with our 
present faculties, that a thing can make itself, or that any thing can 
be exhibited consisting of a propriety of parts or functions, that has 
not been framed by intelligence. 

But the atheist may contend, that God, by every religious scheme, 
and by myself, too, as an avowed Christian, is considered good, and 
therefore, I cannot really separate the Creator and his attributes 
from the bearing of their atheistical propositions, for still T must de- 
fend him from the charge, that he, being a good God, has made a 
world, in which moral and physical evil preponderates over any man- 
ifestation of his goodness, however great we can show it to be. That 
hence arises a manifest contradiction between the good Creator and 
his evil work, that it is impossible to reconcile with each other, and 
that it is, therefore, more reasonable to believe there is no God, than 
to believe in one who manifests more of evil than he does of good. 

f believe the foregoing would be substantially the replication of 
the atheist, and I answer, that it is but repeating the theory of athe- 
ism, as I stated it at first, namely, that it produced no positive argu- 
ment for its support, but only attacked the attributes of the God 
who is supposed to make all things, and who is universally consider- 
ed good. 

After whatl have said already, it would be unnecessary to repeat 
my argument, or view, on this subject, showing the difference be- 
tween the fact of a Creator to all things, and the fact of what his 
real attributes may be. The atheist now, if I represent his views 
correctly, would put the controversy upon the ground, whether it 
be more rational to believe in the existence of a jrood God makin*? 
an imperfect and evil work, or to disbelieve in his existence alto- 
gether. 

Now though I might fairly shelter myself under the very rational 



39 
supposition that the God who has made the universe, may be in- 
comprehensible in his nature, and that, therefore, his attributes and 
purposes in making the world, may not be understood by man, a 
creature that he has made, yet 1 will not avail myself of what 1 could 
do with so much rationality, but I will fairly meet the atheistical 
objection concerning the imputation of physical and moral evil, being 
present in all the visible works of God, and sliovv, as 1 trust satisfacto- 
rily, that this condition of things offers no justification, whatever, for 
the atheistical theory. 

The atheistical objections against the theory of a divine Creator, 
upon the ground that moral and physical evil is present in all his 
works, appears to me as absurd a notion as ever entered the head of 
man. For let me ask in what does this moral and physical evil con- 
sist? It is the summary of all the pain, the trouble, the folly, or 
the immorality that is implicated in the imperfection of our intel- 
lectual and physical constitution or that of the world around us. 
Now, however great these things may be stated, and whatever may 
be the degree of imperfection in the visible world, I shall not con- 
cern myself in the least degree to reduce the estimate, for how does 
that amount, be it what it may, justify the atheist to conclude there 
can be no God? For let me ask, what condition of being is it pos- 
sible for him to conceive of, that is not liable to this objection of 
being an evil state? There cannot be the least difiiculty to show, 
that every state or condition of being, less than absolute perfection, is 
as relative to that absolute perfection, an evil condition. If we sup- 
pose an infinite series of intelligent or sentient beings regularly de- 
scending from a higher to an inferior condition, they are every one 
of them evil, as compared with absolute perfection, some in a less, 
and others in a greater degree. Therefore, if the measure of evil 
that is perceivable in the constitution of human nature, impeaches 
the existence of the Creator, so would a lesser degree, and one still 
less than that, until we shall find that no condition of being short of 
absolute perfection is exempt from the imputation of being evil. 
Consequently if any measure of evil be a reproach to the existence 
of the Creator, he must not create any thing unless he endows it with 
all the perfections of his own infinite being; — than which I appre- 
hend no doctrine can be more preposterously absurd. 

As every degree of existence short of infinite perfection is com- 
paratively evil, it must be clear that no condition would satisfy a cav- 
iller on this subject, unless lie was immortal, subject lo no control 



40 
or inconvenience, and able to gratify every desire that might be sug- 
gested. But such a condition as this characterizes the Divine exist- 
ence only, and it is palpably absurd for the creature to impeach the 
Creator because he has been made of less perfection than his maker. 
But if the Creator can, without impeachment of his infinite at- 
tributes, make a creature in any one degree below his own infinite 
perfection, he can, by the same rule, make others in any other de- 
gree of inferiority. 

Interesting as this subject is, I cannot enlarge upon it further. 1 
shall only add to the preceding exposition, that good, the term used 
by us as opposed to evil, is to be estimated in a like manner. Good 
abstractedly implies absolute perfection, and any degree of perfec- 
tion less than that of the Deity becomes synonymous with evil, for 
greater good, and less evil, or less good, and greater evil, are con- 
vertible terms. Begin with the infinite and absolute perfection of the 
Divine being, and estimate the several constitutions of a series of 
intelligent creatures, as they fall in their spheres, and it will be seen 
that whether we term them lesser degrees of good, or greater de- 
grees of evil, the significance of the terms is precisely the same. 
Any further application of this subject, and it is of great extension, 
I leave to the consideration of every intelligent reader.* 

Then is it any impeachment of the infinite perfections of the Deity 
that he has made his creatures of a constitution less in degree than 
his own perfect nature? I apprehend no sane man can assert this, 
Then the evil conditions of our world does not impeach his perfect 
nature in the very smallest degree. 

The objection sometimes made by the atheists, that there are no 
providential exhibitions of the power of God in the government of hu- 
man affairs, seems to me as absurd as any other of their arguments. 
For what has this to do with the question, whether the material world 
was made by divine intelligence or not? Suppose that God does 
not govern the world by any providence, that circumstance does not 
aflfect the question whether the world was created by him in the very 
smallest degree. 

Whether God governs the world by general or by particular provi- 
dences is a question of facts that may be true or not. It may be 
visible or it may be indiscernable. Those who advocate or deny the 

* Nothing has more perplexed the Christian world than to account for what 
is called the existence of moral and physical evil. I hope the preceding expo- 
sition will satisfy any one, that the perplexity of this subject is visionary. 
It is alone founded in the absurd doctrine of abstract ideas, that prolific source 
of human errors. 



41 

facts, are bound to satisfy us by their exhibition of proof. If the 
facts prove the general and particular providence of God, it is all 
very well; and if the facts do not justify us to believe in his provi- 
dence, we then come to the conclusion, not that there is no Creator, 
but that the Creator does not govern the world by a visible provi- 
dence. Any inference further than this would be absurd. 

As the atheists cannot explain the order, harmony, and construc- 
tion of the material universe by their theory, so their only argument 
has been derived from the imperfection of things and the existence 
of moral and physical evil, as it is called. To make their views 
upon these points of any importance, they must satisfy us that it is 
impossible that evil intelligences can work at all, or that God can- 
not make a work of less than absolute perfection. 

But this it is impossible for the atheist to prove; and we are fully 
justified, from the examination of the material world, not only to be- 
lieve in the existence of a God, the Creator of all things, but the 
manifestation of his skill, design, and power is so evident from every 
inspection of the natural world, that it is impossible for any reason- 
able man to avoid the conclusion when the subject is fairly stated. 

I do not claim for the result of our investigation, that we have made 
any demonstration of the existence of God, further than that it is 
the most reasonable inference we can make from the inspection of 
material things. It seems to us that as we discern great skill and 
design in the construction of all things, so we cannot but ascribe 
their form and existence to the act of an intelligent being. For it 
is utterly impossible for us to conceive that material things can be 
arranged in harmony, order, propriety of parts to parts, and seem- 
ingly involving great skill, unless by the supposition of a directing 
mind or intelligent principle. To assert that such a state of things arose 
from chance, or that it never had a beginning, is not only rendering 
the subject more difficult of credibility, but positively even of com- 
prehension. 

The most we claim for our inference that there is a God, is that 
it simply possesses the value of a physical or mechanical principle 
in accounting for the origin and continued existence of the material 
universe. We do not consider that the fact of the existence of a 
Creator in any manner implies his possessing moral or excellent at- 
tributes, such as have been attributed to him by philosophers or 
theologians. But any discussion on this subject must bo referred to 

the ensuing chapter. 
6 



42 

Though I apprehend we have, with sufficient force, justified the 
theory that the material universe owes its existence to designing 
power and intelligence, I am altogether unable to discern, from the 
visible world, whether that intelligent power be single or is distribu- 
ted among a number of divinities. We must all admit a manifest 
unity of design in all the constituent parts of our universe, and that 
the same laws and principles exist throughout, by which every par- 
ticular principle or substance in working in its own particular 
sphere, yet works at the same time harmoniously in the com- 
pounded systematic operation. But though such a system of 
things is explainable upon the theory of the existence of a sin- 
gle supreme self-existing Deity, yet I cannot perceive how the 
facts of the case prove that such is the actual truth. I should think 
that it is more in consistence with the ordinary apprehension of men 
to suppose a polytheism, for the testimony of history is uniform on 
that point. Not a single nation or even philosopher of PEiganism 
has maintained the doctrine of a single God. They have invariably 
supposed that though there was one Deity superior to all other dei- 
ties, yet each of them exercised power and sovereignty in his particu- 
lar, though subordinate sphere, and hence mankind have in their 
prayers and sacrifices attempted to propitiate their deities as distinct 
individuals. I, therefore, under this experience, consider it impos- 
sible to determine from the frame of the universe whether the works 
of creation have been accomplished and are now governed by a Dei- 
ty single in his existence, or whether there be a greater or less num- 
ber of divinities who have shared the work and the empire among 
themselves. 

In the present chapter the further prosecution of this question is of 
no importance, for we have as yet only contended against the athe- 
ists for the construction, preservation, and permanence of the material 
universe through divine agencies, be they of many or of but one God. 

But as the approved theory of the present day is, that there 
is but one God, as the proposition is not only more simple than any 
other, but fully as explanatory in every particular, we shall use the 
hypothesis in our future pages, so far as may concern our abstract 
reasoning on the nature and attributes of Deity, and therefore we 
shall, under an assumption, speak of God as one supreme, self-exist- 
ing being, in a manner analogous with that of the algebraists, who 
express an unknown quantity by some arbitrary letter or device. 



CHAPTER II. 

A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE VALUE OF THE THEO- 
RY OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 

Having now sufficiently exhibited the fact, that every examination 
of the material universe justifies the rationality of inferring the exist- 
ence of a Creator God, as the maker of all things, our next proceed- 
ing must be to examine the value of those arguments, by which man- 
kind, under the theory of Natural Religion, have considered him to 
be possessed of those peculiar moral attributes which involve all the 
importance that the theoiy of religion can have in the sight of man. 

Though we have agreed to consider the creation of our visible 
world as the work of a single deity, yet the reader must not fall into 
the notion that such a doctrine has been proved. I have only con- 
sented to use the theory of a single God for the convenience of our 
argument. In our future use of the term God, we consider it to be 
synonymous with that intelligent power that has framed the universe, 
whether it be supposed to belong to one or to many deities. 

As it is abundantly evident that all nations of men worship their 
deities under the belief that by such homage they shall either draw 
down blessings on their heads, or avert calamities; so it must be evi- 
dent, even according to the grossest estimate, that they consider their 
deities to possess all those excellent attributes which would charac- 
terize a good man, though infinitely superior in degree to what they 
conceive human nature to possess. 

Hence all nations call their deities good; which term as it can be 
understood to include the attributes of mercy, benevolence, justice, 
&;c., I shall in future use it as a general term, embracing all excel- 
lence of moral attributes as commonly ascribed to God, in order to 
avoid the repetition of every particular excellent attribute. 

The nearest approach we can make to a rational idea of the na- 
ture of God, as depicted under the theory of natural religion, will 
be to take those qualities whicli mankind would consider to charac- 
terize a good king, and apply them, increased infinitely, to any con- 
ception we may be able to form concerning the existence of the Crea- 



44 

tor of all things. Such a figure of comparison will be consistent in 
the view of all nations, and will be reconcileable to all those anoma- 
lies of feature ascribed by different people to their gods. The rude 
and barbarous have represented their deities to be partial, licentious, 
capricious, in connection with their excellent attributes, yet as such 
persons have never seen virtue exhibited by kings or rulers in greater 
perfection, the application of a similar character to God, is in truth 
the highest estimate they can form of his nature. A nation enjoy- 
ing a greater degree of civilization, estimates the Divine excellency 
by a higher moral standard. But it is those alone who have attain- 
ed to the highest degrees of civilization, that can speak with any be- 
coming reverence of the Supreme Being. Though they consider 
him incomprehensible in the nature and perfection of his attributes, 
they must, nevertheless, speak of him by words and terms intelli- 
gible to mankind, both as respects his existence and providence. 

Thus, in the manner of a good king niling over his people in mer- 
cy, kindness, justice, compassionate to human infirmity, ready to for- 
give, and bountiful in his providence, do men, by a general theory, 
represent God to govern and direct the afllairs of the universe. 
Whether this belief be under the form of a polytheism, or any modi- 
fication of theism, we make no distinction, since the abstract theory 
of all is substantially the same however much they may differ among 
themselves as to particular propriety of view. We, therefore, re- 
gard no discrepancies of human opinions, for we are alone investi- 
gating the value of the abstract theory on this subject. 

In attempting to ascertain what may be the nature and attributes 
of the Deity, it is evident we have but one source from which we 
can make any deduction or inference. As God is not discernable by 
any of our senses, we are compelled to examine his works, it being 
alone through them and their tendencies, that we can venture to in- 
quire whether he possesses those moral attributes involved in the 
general term goodness^ or whether he is to be regarded in any other 
light. 

Though we see throughout the universe an evident purpose in 
the construction of all things, wisdom and power in the execution, 
all this informs us nothing of the moral nature of the Creator, for 
the present constitution of the material world perhaps is not incon- 
sistent with his unknown attributes, whether he be, in our sense of 
the words, good, or of any conceivable modification of moral qualities. 



45 

As this subject has been intensely discussed for ages, it is impossi- 
ble to adduce new facts or throw any new light upon it. We can 
only correct false positions, and detect false reasoning; but by so da- 
ing we may be able to discern, not the absolute truth, yet possibly as 
much as our powers are capable of appreciating under the intellect- 
ual light of the present day. 

The greater number of writers contend that the moral exhibition 
and tendency of God's visible works show him to be good. His evi- 
dent providence towards mankind, and all other animal natures, the 
happiness and comfortable existence that each may, or does actual- 
ly enjoy under his wise and benevolent appointments, are by such 
persons considered to be undeniable proof of the goodness of the 
divine nature. 

A much smaller number of persons infer from the exhibition of 
God's providence towards man and the animal creation, that he is 
entirely indifferent to the concerns of our world, and exercises no 
particular providence in ordering human affairs. 

A third class, (the atheists,) contend, that there is so much pain 
and unhappiness in the constitution of both men and animals, that it 
is altogether inconsistent to believe a benevolent Deity could have 
made things as our universal experience demonstrates them to be. 

To these theories, however, each class of advocates annex inse- 
parably, supplementary opinions, which changes the simplicity of 
their first views into complicated theories that involve a great amount 
of intricate discussion. Thus, those whom we have placed first in 
order^ admit of the decided existence of moral and physical evil to a 
greater or less extent, but which they reconcile to their belief of God's 
goodness by certain independent theories, such as the supposition of 
man being in a probationary state, that there shall be a future life, &c. 

The second class, in saying God seems to be indifferent to the 
happiness of the creatures he has made, generally decline making 
any deduction, further than that the Deity is inscrutable by his 
works, and thence conclude, we have no justifiable ground to ex- 
press any positive opinion whatever, concerning his nature or attri- 
butes, though they consider it indisputable that he must be good. 

The third class, who consider that the inspection of creation ex- 
hibits so much pain, misery, and unhappiness, as to justify the opin- 
ion that God cannot be good, conclude from this, that there can be 
no God at all. 



46 

In our opinion, the continuance of so many difTercnt views upon 
this subject, arises chiefly, if not wholly, from the fact, that the several 
advocates of the above conclusions, do not confine themselves to a 
single exposition of opinion, but combine two or more different theo- 
ries on the subject together, as if they were but single propositions, 
and then argue on one or the other, with so little consistency, that an 
antagonist can always find more or less faulty positions in their de- 
tailed arguments, and thus the controversy is continually maintained, 
by shewing the errors of others, not in establishing the truth of 
their own hypothesis. 

I, therefore, propose to investigate this subject rigidly on its sin- 
gle merits, without any respect to those compensating schemes, that 
each attach to their respective theories. For it must be evident that 
we should have the facts pertaining to the prime question fairly es- 
tablished, before we attempt to add to it another independent theory 
of explanation. 

I, therefore ask, does our knowledge of the actual condition of 
mankind, and of the animal creation, manifest that their good, their 
happiness, and comfort, are matters that imply an evident care and 
providence of the Deity; or is the contrary of this the truth. It is 
by this fact alone, that we can appreciate the moral attributes of 
God, for all other avenues to such knowledge, are closed up to us 
completely. 

It is undeniable that in the constitution of human nature, whether 
regarded as simple individuals, or as members of general society, 
that there are various sources of pleasure and happiness, open to our 
attainment, whether as arising from the exercise of animal functions, 
from the various relations of love and friendship, or in the gratifica- 
tion of taste and intellect. Allowing all these to exist in that actual 
proportion, in which mankind do enjoy them, let us then ask, what 
is the real totality of our happiness, as estimated by the universal ex- 
perience of mankind. For as every capacity, by which we receive 
gratification and pleasure, in like manner admits of disgustful and 
painful impressions, so it by no means follows, that our capacity to 
be made happy, involves the actual attainment of happiness. 

Now, with respect to mankind, there can be no dispute, that hu- 
man life is so much embittered by sorrow, affliction, and pain^ 
so much by tyranny and oppression, so much by poverty and disease, 
that in all ages, every moral writer whatever, has exhibited human 



47 
nature as being essentially unhappy; and death, however much wc 
dread his approach, has been ever regarded as our great deliverer 
from the troubles of human life. The Scriptures decidedly take the 
same view, and in short, none but certain advocates of natural theol- 
ogy, hold any other language on the question of fact. 

Nor must we omit to state this further consideration; we have not 
only a capacity for being made happy, but we have a decided per- 
ception in what it consists, and strong desire to attain that happiness. 
If we then be incapable, from universal experience, of accomplishing 
our desires, except in the most partial and fleeting manner, we are 
sufficiently authorized by our whole view of human life, and its en- 
joyments, to assert that we cannot discern how God can be called 
good. As he is, by his visible works, possessed of infinite power and 
intelligence, so as he has not appointed a happy state and condition 
to human existence, it follows that we have no reason whatever, to 
consider him good, from any view derivable from our experience of 
his providence. 

With respect to the brute animals, a stronger position against 
the theory of the divine goodness may be sustained, for except some 
few quadrupeds, such as the horse, ox, sheep, camel, &c. who are 
all obnoxious to the cruelty of both man and beast, almost all other 
animals of this class; most, if not all the birds; most, if not all the 
fish; all amphibious and crustaceous animals, and most, but not all 
the insects, live by destroying one another. To fit and prepare them 
for their respective conditions of being, the Creator of all things, has 
furnished some with talons and teeth, to tear each other to pieces; 
some are formed with poisonous fangs, by which they induce a terri- 
ble death, while others, by various contrivances, having arrested 
their victim, suck their blood or juices, with all the aggravations of 
terror, until death relieves the wretched creature from its pitiable suf- 
ferings. 

Now whether we regard this actual condition of man or beast, as 
proceeding either directly from God, or indirectly from his permis- 
sion, it amounts to one and the same thing. The Creator has not 
enabled nor permitted man or beast to be essentially bappy, and as 
our creation is of and from God, so in the above defect it is impos- 
sible to discern how God can bo esteemed good, either to man or 
beast. It does not conclusively follow, that he is not good, but that wc 



48 

cannot discern the fact that he is so. It is possible there may be 
a compensatory scheme, existing some where in God's purposes, that 
may ultimately reconcile these extraordinary conditions of human 
and animal life, with an infinite perfection of nature and attributes, 
but this we certainly have no means of ascertaining from the natural 
world, for the intellect of man has been unsuccessfully working for 
ages how to establish such a doctrine. 

But we have no concern with conjectures at the present, we must 
judge of facts as they are, with all honesty of view, and at the same 
time that we determine the actual condition of things, let us be care- 
ful not to infer consequences to them, which as being wholly inappre- 
ciable by us in their final results, are therefore liable to the utmost 
degrees of mistake and error. 

We must acknowledge that the works of creation demonstrate 
the infinite power and intelligence of God, and therefore it is very 
possible that we are altogether incapable of comprehending his de- 
signs and purposes. It is consistent with our knowledge, to say that 
we cannot discern the goodness of God in his works; it would be pre- 
sumptuous to assert that he is not good. As far as experience jus- 
tifies us, let us speak honestly according to our knowledge; any thing 
further than this, is mere conjecture and hypothesis. 

I had prepared for this page, an analysis of the arguments used by 
Paley, as one of the latest and best writers who have undertaken to 
establish the goodness of the Deity from an examination of the ma- 
terial world. But his arguments are undeserving a formal refuta- 
tion. As I apprehend that none but a Christian would concede 
them any weight whatever; so I think any one can see that Paley's 
theory on that subject is destroyed by the Scriptures themselves, 
which in every passage that touches upon human enjoyments, rep- 
resents them to be vanities connected with disappointment and sor 
row. Hence Paley's argument upon which he asserts divine benev- 
olence, to wit, that there is an excess of happiness in this life over its 
uneasiness and pain, is not only directly untrue according to univer- 
sal experience, but it is expressly contrary to the general assertion 
of the sacred volume.* 

*The reader who may not have Paley's Natural Theolos^' at hand, will be 
able to see how desperately he was put to, to establish his notion, when he 
was obliged to advance the following argument, as one of his proofs. 

"Pain itself, is not without its alleviations. It may be violent and frequctU, 
but it is seldom both violent and long continued, and its pauses and intermissions 
become positive pleasures. It has the power of shedding a satisfaction over in- 



49 

Lord Bolingbroke, who had an especial ol)ject to accomplish, if 
he could prove the evident goodness of the Creator of all things, af- 
ter repeatedly asserting that such was the evident fact, and as fre- 
quently evading, to give the proof, at last undertook to make a 
demonstration which is so entirely irrelevant to the purpose, and so 
futile, that we forbear to introduce it in our text. But least any 
one should suppose our proceeding in this case to be an unfair dis- 
position of his argument, the reader will find the extract in our Ap- 
pendix, by which he may judge for himself how really impossible it 
has been for the natural theologian, whether Christian or deist, to 
infer goodness to the Creator of all things, by any impartial exami- 
nation of his works. 

Baron Holbach, the atheist, writes more rationally in opposition 
to the scheme of Paley and Bolingbroke, he remarks, "Almost all 
books are filled with the most flattering praises of Providence, whose 
attentive care is highly extolled. It would seem as if man, to live 
happy here below, needed not his own exertions. Yet without his 
own labor, man could subsist hardly a day. To live, he is obliged 
to sweat, toil, hunt, fish, and labor without intermission. In all 
parts of the globe we see the savage and the civilized man in a 
perpetual struggle with Providence. He is necessitated to ward off" 
the strokes directed against him by Providence, in hurricanes, tem- 
pests, frosts, hail-storms, inundations, droughts, and the various ac- 
cidents which so often render useless all his labors. In a word, we 
see man continually occupied in guarding against the ill ofiices of 
that Providence, which is supposed to be attentive to his happiness. 
Men think they justify Providence by saying, that in this world 
there is much more good than evil, to every individual of mankind. 
Supposing the good we enjoy from Providence are to the evil, as 

tervals of ease, which, I believe, few enjoyments exceed. A man rest ins; from a 
fit of the stone or ^out, is, for the time, in possession of feclinc:s, which undis- 
turbed health cannot impart. They may be dearly bought, but still lliey are 
to be set aj^ainst the price. And indeed it depends upon the duration and ur- 
gency of the pain, \vhether they be dearly bought or not. / am far from be- 
ing svre iltal a man is not a gainer bij snjfen'ng a moderate interruption of bodily 
ease, for a covplc of hours ooi of the four and tncnty.'" 

On the same page he further informs us, that "few diseases are fatal. I 
have before me the account of a dispensary in the neighborliood, which states 
six years experience as follows; admitted G,42(), cured, 5,470, dead 2.'>4, and 
this I suppose, nearly to agiee with what other similar institutions exhibit," 
&c. &,c. Now can greater mummery be introduced than this. Did not all 
Paley's cured paliints die at last, in gn^iter or less ])aiM and sorrow, and can a 
theory, be considered as any ways probalile, that appeals to such statements 
and exhibitions as ])roofof the amount of human happiness. 
7 



50 

a hundred to ten, will it not still follow, that for a hundred degrees 
of goodness, Providence possesses ten of malignity ." 

But without going to the extreme, either of the natural theologian 
or of the atheist, I should presume that every man, of tolerable obser- 
vation and experience, will at once admit, that there are such admix- 
tures of good and evil, of pleasure and pain, joy and grief, life and 
death, involved in human existence, that it would seem that if a man 
will have a positive dogma on the subject of the nature and attri- 
butes of the Creator, he can come to no other conclusion, reasoning 
only from nature and experience, than that the deity was totally in- 
different to human and animal happiness. 

I presume there can be no difficulty in bringing this subject home 
to every honest man, by simply asking him, whether he would make 
the world with all the evil, sorrow, and distress, with which it abounds. 
I do not ask any one concerning what may be the actual propor- 
tions of good and evil discernable in the world, but whether any good 
man would admit that portion of pain and evil that undeniably exists. 
I apprehend there is no one that would for a moment hesitate to say 
he would not. But should such a one decline to answer the question, 
we have a strong decision on this point that unequivocally affirms 
our view. I allude to those laws enacted by humane legislation to 
punish men for cruelty to the beasts. If a man treats his horse or 
ox with unreasonable severity, he is punishable by municipal regu- 
lation in all Christian countries, yet God permits, or has created 
lions, tigers, and other carnivorous animals, who maintain and enjoy 
their existence only in devouring horses, oxen, and other animals, 
with infinitely greater suffering than man inflicts on them. It is, 
therefore, very evident that a humane man would not do, what God 
has either done or permitted to be done. 

Though I might carry out these views to a much greater extent, 
they appear to me sufficiently exhibited for our general purpose. 
The existence, nay, the dominion of moral and physical evil, as it 
is called, in all material things, is so palpable, that only those who 
are determined not to be convinced, can pretend to demonstrate the 
benevolence of the deity in his providential government of this lower 
world. 

Then from what sources of knowledge have men attained to the 
belief, that God possesses goodness of attributes, when every thing 
around us proclaims the equal, if hot greater power, of an evil and 



51 

malignant principle. The ancient Persians alone, seem to approach 
towards a rationality of hypothesis in explaining the condition of the 
visible world, by the supposition that the government of the universe 
is a matter of contest between a good and an evil deity, who, from 
time to time, gain advantages over each other in the management of 
all things. 

Hitherto, we have been employed in speculations upon the exist- 
ence and attributes of the Creator of all things, subjects that neces- 
sarily involve the very foundation of natural religion, and neverthe- 
less we have been unable to discern any sufficient authority to justify 
prevailing opinions. But as our preceding inquiry is somewhat dif- 
ficult of investigation, there is room for the possibihty of erroneous 
deduction on our part, as well as on that of others. But we are now 
to investigate other fundamental principles of the theory of natural re- 
ligion, that are more directly cognizable by our senses, and which have 
an important retrospective influence upon the subject we have al- 
ready discussed, and the positions we have ventured to take. Truth 
is so universally consistent, that if we have advanced any thing im- 
proper or untrue in our preceding pages, 1 apprehend the fallacy can- 
not pass undetected in our ensuing speculations, but if what we have 
already stated be true, its absolute consistency with what yet remains 
for us to exhibit, must be considered no small argument as to the 
real force and accurary of our former conclusions. 

By the universal theory of religious obligations, God is supposed 
to be not only the snstainer of all things in that general providence 
by which things endure from century to century, but he is also re- 
garded as being present to every human being in a particular prov- 
idence. Under the influence of this belief, individuals of all ages 
and countries address him in prayer, they cry to him in tbeir afflic- 
tions, they humble themselves before him, they offtir sacrifice and 
perform penitential austerities. They do all this under the assurance 
that God hears them, that he can relieve their affliction, and that 
he may be entreated to bestow blessings upon thetn. 

Now upon what evidence, or upon what induction of wisdom, does 
this belief of God's providence depend, and what is the ncfn:d expe- 
rience of mankind upon this subject. 

As to the fact of a general providence, whereby God maintnins, in 
permanence of form and condition, all existing phenomena, thoro 
cannot be any rational doubt. We have both history and our own 



52 

experience to cstablisli that fact. As we have alrencly shewn how 
reasonable it is to believe the world was made by a God, so it is 
equally rational for us to consider that he sustains it, whether 
through that general system of laws appointed at its first creation, ir- 
respective of any inspection of its concerns since that lime, or 
whether he has it ever present to liim, and sustains it by an unceas- 
ing direct energy of his divine power. A general providence, there- 
fore, under one or the other of the preceding opinions, is no more 
than a corollary to the theory of its creation by an intelligent power, 
and which it is seemingly impossible to controvert. But upon what 
ground is the doctrine of a particvlar providence based, by which 
every individual brings himself by prayer into the immediate influ- 
ences of the divine presence. 

I am entirely ignorant of any facts that will justify the belief, 
much less establish the conviction that God exerts any manifest or 
visible providence in human affairs, he certainly does not distinguish 
between the good and the evil, the worshipper or despiser of his 
divinity, as far as we can perceive by any special marks of his favor 
or displeasure. Nay, very often we see the most impious of men to 
be the most prosperous, and we as often see the virtuous and pious, 
in affliction. In short, we continually see men, whom human laws 
would punish if they could reach them, pass through life without 
any mark whatever of the divine displeasure. 

Wemayalso appeal to universal experience, whether the worship- 
pers of Deity have their prayers answered in any sensible manner 
whatever. We do not address this inquiry to any particular sect or 
scheme of religion, but to all men of every age and country, and I 
apprehend there can be no difference in their answer. They will 
all reply in the negative. 

Then upon what rational principle does the belief of a particular 
providence depend; upon what grounds do men pray and ofler sacrifice 
to God, when they have not the smallest proof to justify the suppo- 
sition that God either hears or regards them. 

From this notorious absence of any perceptible providence of God 
in administering human afiliirs, from the prosperity of the wicked, 
and the afflictions of the virtuous, most persons have found them- 
selves under the necessity of inferring that there must be a future 
state of existence, in which all the anomalies of providence, in the 
present life, shall be explained, where the good shall be rewarded, 
and the evil shall be punished. 



53 

But the inferring of any such doctrine is the most unjustifiable of 
assumptions, for where have we learned that the Creator's attri- 
butes are excellent and good so as to require such a compensatory 
scheme. It can never be permitted that one hypothetical doctrine 
is to be sustained by the enunciation of another equally hypothetical, 
and of all gratuitous inferences there is none, in my apprehension, 
more absolutely so than the doctrine of the immortality of the human 
soul, as any one who has ever speculated opon the subject, must be 
obliged to confess.* 

Of all the unwarrantable assumptions pertaining to the theory of 
natural religion, it seems to me that the doctrine of the immortality 
of the human soul is the most repugnant to common sense. Thous- 
ands of millions of men have been born and died, and yet we have 
not a single fact to justify a belief of the separate existence of the 
soul from the body. On the contrary, the theory of the immortality 
of the soul has every fact in nature and reason opposed to it, and 
not a single justifiable inference in its favor. We see our fellow 
creatures, from a state of health and animation, sensibly decline 
through various stages of disease to the insensibility of death. Their 
bodies, then, rapidly decompose, and the whole frame disappears re- 
solved into the various simpler elements of which we presume all 
material things are composed. With this display before our eyes, 
and with a total want of any other evidence, what can justify the no- 
tion, that an invisible principle bearing in itself the consciousness 

*That I may satisfy the reader that my views upon this subject, are strictly 
conformable to the sentiments of the most eminent Doctors of Christianity, I 
shall make some extracts from the writings of Archbishop Tillotson, which 
both substantiate, at the same time that they also illustrate this subject in its 
philosopliical bearing. 

"I do not wonder that the greatest wits among the heathen philosophers, 
were so much puzzled with the following objection against the providence of 
God. If the wise, and just, and good gods do administer the afi'airs of the world, 
and be concerned in the good and bad actions of men, cur bonis male, et malis 
bene, how comes it to pass that good men many times are miserable, and bad 
men so happy in the present world," &c. — jl'illolson, 175 Sermon. 

In his 22(1 Sermon he there admits — "If there be no future life it would 
puzzle all the wit and reason of mankind to vindicate the equity and justice 
of the divine providence, and to rescue it out of the hands of this terrible ob- 
jection." 

It is, therefore, in this utter defect of God's visible providence, that this ex- 
cellent prelate founds his chief argument for the immortality of the soul, iis he 
honestly confesses in his 175th Sermon. "The sum of this argument, and which 
I have thus largely dilated upon, because I look upon it as one of the most 
strong and convincing of the soul's immortality, is this: that the justice of God's 
providence cannot be sufficiently vindicated, but upon the suvposal of this princi- 
ple of the soul's immortality" 



54 

of former identity has escaped from the body, we know not how nor 
whither, and which, in the thousand of millions of instances that 
have occurred, have never afforded one authenticated exhibition of 
this supposed separate existence. 

In short, I know not one single fact or argument in the philosophy 
of this world to justify a belief of the soul's immortality; and I fur- 
ther consider, that every circumstance connected with the subject is 
directly opposed to such a belief.* 

From the frequent repetition by the school-boys of Gate's soliloquy, 
in Addison's Tragedy of that name, it is one of the commonest ex- 
pressions among those who speak the English language, to quote 
Plato as having made a demonstration of the immortality of the soul. 
"It must be so; Plato, thou reasonest well," is continually repeated 
as if Plato had indeed reasoned well. That the reader may judge 
of this fact, I shall furnish him with Plato's arguments, and least 
he might mistrust my epitome of them, 1 shall extract them from 
the writings of another person. 

"In nature all things terminate in their contraries; the state of 
sleep terminates in that of waking, and the reverse; so life ends in 
death, and death in life. 

"The soul is a simple indivisible substance, and, therefore, inca- 
pable of dissolution and corruption. The objects to which it natu- 
rally adheres, are spiritual and incorruptible, therefore its nature is so. 

"All our knowledge is acquired by the reminiscence of ideas con- 
templated in a prior state. As the soul, therefore, must have exist- 
ed before this life, it is probable that it will continue to exist after it; 
life being the conjunction of the soul with the body, death is nothing 
more than their separation. 

* All the more intellectual deists have been unable to discern any argument 
in favor of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. I apprehend two au- 
thorities on this point will be sufficient. 

Lord Bolingbroke, (Fragments, ^-c. v. 373,) observes, "I do not say that to 
believe in a future state is to believe a vulgar error, but this I say that it can- 
not be demonstrated by reason, it is not, in the nature of it, capable of demon- 
stration, and no one ever returned that irremediable way to give us an assurance 
of the fact. It was, therefore, originally an hypothesis, and it may, therefore, 
be a vulgar error," 8cc. 

Hume, {Essay on Immort. Soul,) remarks, "By the mere light of reason it 
seems difficult to prove the immortality of the soul; the arguments for it are 
commonly derived, either from metaphysical topics, or moral or physical. But 
in reality it is the gospel, and the gospel alone that has brought life and immor- 
tality to "light," &c. In the conclusion of this essa^', after examining all the 
arguments advanced on the subject, he concludes with the following sneering 
observation: "Nothing could set in a fuller light the infinite obligations which 
mankind have to divine revelation; since we find no other medium could as- 
certain this greatand important truth." 



55 

"Whatever is the principle of motion must be incapable of destruc- 
tion." 

"Such," says Enfield, {Hist. Philos. L 248,) "is the substance of 
the arguments for the immortality of the soul contained in the cele- 
brated Dialogue of the Phosdo. It is happy for mankind that their 
belief of this important doctrine rests upon firmer grounds than such 
futile reasonings." 

Being justified, by a total want of all evidence, to reject the doc- 
trine of the immortality of the soul, it becomes unnecessary to dis- 
cuss the theory of a future state of reward and punishment, which 
having no independent proof of its own truth, rests alone upon the 
absolute demonstration of the immortality of the human spirit, which 
we have already shown to be destitute even of plausibility. It then 
only remains that we now reconsider, and defend, if necessary, the 
particular views we have taken upon each dogma of the general theo- 
ry of Natural Religion, that we may decide upon the true value of the 
inferences derivable from the study of Natural Theology, and which 
we could only fairly determine by proceeding in the manner as pro- 
posed in page 28. 

In coming to the conclusion, that we have no authority or argu- 
ment derivable from the natural world, whereby we can infer that 
the Creator is good, I am aware that the prejudices of education 
will excite in many persons a greater or less degree of repugnance 
to the admission of any such doctrine, and that many persons will 
rather suppose some fallacy in my reasoning than admit the correct- 
ness of my deduction. This mistrust would be very justifiable if it 
would induce such individuals to study this important subject for 
themselves, and then make a judgment according to the merits of 
the case. But I apprehend there are but few that will do this; the 
majority of men rather than investigate a subject that shall put them 
to the trouble of carefully determining the value of those notions 
they have derived from education and prejudice, will prefer tlie shorter 
course of simply denying the intrinsic value of my arguments, and 
continue to believe the prevailing doctrines as being sterling opinions, 
approved by the authority of ages. Under such an imi)ression 1 
cannot consent to publish my views on this subject, without taking 
some further trouble to vindicate their truth. 

Whether the goodness of the Cieator can bo discerned in the 
formation and government of natural things, is to be in(j[uired into 



56 

as a matter of fact. Is it true? Is it not true? 1 liave, with all 
honesty of purpose, and in all calmness of judgment, satisfied myself, 
that neither God's goodness nor providence are manifested by his 
works, according to any notion that we have of the meaning of 
the words, and so evidently correct is this opinion, that the very 
facts of the case have alone sustained atheism from the remotest 
times of history, down to the present day. The very facts them- 
selves, have been sufficient to establish an absolute disbelief of the 
existence of a God in the minds of men of the highest order of intel- 
lect, in every age of the world, and to overpower the evidence of 
their senses, as to the system of intelligent design, skill, and pur- 
pose, that the construction of the material universe, undeniably 
presents to our senses. How then can an appeal to God's works, as 
evidence of his goodness be sustained when not only such an in- 
ference is denied to be correct, but even the very facts of tlie case 
are maintained to demonstrate the contrary doctrine. 

This position, however, may be disputed by many Christians, who 
having been misled by those treatises, published both by pious and 
learned men upon the subject of Natural Theology, will insist, that the 
inferences made by such writers, cannot be destitute of that power of 
argument to the degree, at least, to which I have attempted to re- 
duce them. I shall, therefore, succinctly exhibit the radical fallacy 
of all such treatises, so that there shall remain no doubt on this sub- 
ject. 

Those Christian writers who have undertaken to investigate the 
principles of Natural Theology, and to justify the reasonableness of 
the inferences, ordinarily deduced from such a study, invariably af- 
fect to place themselves in the condition of persons, who may be sup- 
posed entirely ignorant of the theory of Christianity. But though 
they do this, they cannot suspend the influence of their religious opin- 
ions, but with greater or less adroitness, and more or less uncon- 
sciously, they work up their views of the material world, into an 
accordance with their suppressed belief in Christianity, and thus they 
both delude themselves and their readers, with the notion that the 
subject has been brought to a fair exhibition, altogether independent 
of any assistance from the theory of Christianity. 

Thus, for instance, the skill, design, and purpose, exhibited in the 
construction of the universe, are, by such wnters, considered to de- 
monstrate the existence of God, but not abstractedly, as a term, sig- 



57 
nifyina divine power and intelligence, but such as he has been com- 
prehended from the Scripture. Now, I admit that the appearance 
of skill, wisdom, and design, in the formation of the works of crea- 
tion, quadrates or harmonizes with the doctrine, that there is a God, 
and will justify us to entertain such an opinion. But to give the ar- 
gument any force, I must previously have had an idea of God. Now 
the question of real importance is, whether men could have discerned 
the existence of God, without having had previous instruction on 
that subject. The question is not, whether, after having received 
the doctrine, we can, to a greater or less degree, justify such a be- 
lief, from an examination of material things. 

But the Christian advocate of the inferences to be deduced from 
Natural Theology, when he finds the appearance of skill, intelligence? 
and design, in the natural world, instead of perceiving that the facts 
only quadrate with the theory he or his instructors have derived from 
the Scriptures, fancies it to be a demonstration of the absolute exist- 
ence of God as a moral bei?ig, and possessing excellent attributes, 
for without such perfection, they assert he could not be God. With 
this foundation, they proceed, by an imaginary force of induction, to 
establish the general and particular providence of God, man's pro- 
bationary condition, and finally, a future state of reward and punish- 
ment, by which all the anomalies prieviously unexplained, are recon- 
ciled with the excellent attributes, not demonstrated to belong to 
God, but ascribed to him, because they believe he could not be God, 
without such infinite perfections. The only matter left to the author- 
ity of revelation, under such exhibitions, is, that it informs man 
positively, and certainly, on the subject, and directs us as to the ser- 
vice God requires of us. 

Now the whole of such a process is neither more nor less than an 
artificial accommodation of natural philosophy, or of natural history, 
to the Christian religion, which, though it may indirectly confirm a 
Christian in his faith, never does convince the understanding of any 
one, who doubts or disbelieves, concerning the truth of Christianity. 
For the ficts that demonstrate, in the writer's judgment, the existence 
of God as a moral being, are so clogged with the real or apparent 
difficulties of moral and physical evil, that the atheist or deist throws 
the whole structure into ruins, and compels the advocate of natural 
theology, at last to shelter himself in the authority of the Scripture, 
under the triumphant taunt of his antagonists, that the Christian re- 
ligion is a matter of faith, and not one of reason. But the fact really 
has been, that the Christian religion has not been assailed, and 
the atheist or deist have simplv demolished the theory of Natural 
8 



58 

Religion. But I know of nothing in the apprehension of Christians 
generally, that will militate so much against the views I have taken, 
on the subject of NaturalTheology, and the attributes of Deity, than 
the misconception of certain passages of the Scriptures, and which, as 
I find the error nearly universal, I beg leave to bring the passages 
alluded to under a particular scrutiny. 

In the Psalms, it is said, "The fool in his heart has said, there is 
no God;" and from hence, many persons infer that the Scriptures 
assert, that he who disputes the existence, and consequently the at- 
tributes of God, is void of understanding. But every Hebraist knows 
that the word translated fool, means there, not a foolish or simple 
man, but one who is irreligious or profligate, who, not discerning 
any judgment of God in his providence, throws off all fear, and fol- 
lows his own evil inclinations; which signification the context very 
clearly exhibits. 

Again, it is said in the Psalms — "The heavens declare the glory 
of God, and the firmament sheweth his handy-work," &c. This is 
undoubtedly correct; the heavens exhibit the majesty and power of 
God, but we learn of them nothing as to his moral attributes or 
perfections. 

But the passages to which most importance has been attached, 
are two, in the New Testament: one is in Acts xiv. 15, 16, 17, and 
the other in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans i. 19, 20. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, as above quoted, it is related that 
Paul and Barnabas, at Lystra, miraculously healed a cripple, which 
so much astonished the people of that place, that they cried out the 
gods had come down to them in human shapes, and the priest of 
Jupiter brought forward oxen to perform a sacrifice to them. Paul 
and Barnabas, with some difficulty, prevented this act of religion on 
the part of the Lystrans, and observed to them, crying out: 

"Sirs, why do ye these things'? We also are men of like passions 
with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vani- 
ties, unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, 
and all things that are therein: 

"Who in times past sufl^ered all nations to walk in their own 
ways. 

"Nevertheless he left not himself without w'itness, in that he did 
good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our 
hearts with food and gladness." 

The advocates of Natural Theology build largely on this last verse, 
but a very little reflection on the circumstances of the case, will be 
sufficient to show that the observations of Paul and Barnabas are 
wholly inapplicable to any such theory. 



59 

St. Paul and his associate were not preaching to atheists, or 
those who denied either God, or providence, but they were speaking 
to idolaters, who worshipped Jupiter and Mercury, and whose very 
priest prepared to offer religious homage and sacrifice to them. 
Now, every one knows these idolaters believed in the providence of 
Jupiter, as the supreme god, and their thanks had been always ad- 
dressed to him for the blessings of rain, fruitful seasons, &c., which 
they considered, proceeded from his divine providence. 

The object of St. Paul, therefore, was not to convince the Lystrans 
of the fact that there was a God, nor that he exercised a providence 
over them; for that fact, this people undeniably believed. The aim 
of the Apostle was to convert them from the worship of such vanities, 
as Jupiter and Mercury, to the worship of the living God^ i. e. Je- 
hovah. The actual receipt of temporal blessings, such as "rain from 
heaven, fruitful seasons," &c., cannot, certainly, determine the fact, 
whether the blessings came from Jehovah or Jupiter. The provi- 
dence of a supreme god, was admitted distinctly by the Lystrans, as 
it was by all other Pagan nations. The object of St. Paul, undenia- 
bly, was to convince them that such blessings came from Jehovah, 
and not from Jupiter, whom they considered the chief deity. 

The seventeenth verse, therefore, furnishes no authority whatever, 
in favor of Natural Theology, since the undoubted object of St. Paul 
was to convert idolaters, and not to convince atheists. 

I presume the phrase "Ze/if not himself without witness in that he 
did good" &;c., means, that Jehovah, the living God, who had made 
man and all other things, had continued to sustain, by his unceasing 
providence, those persons who had forsaken his worship and fell into 
idolatry. During the long time of their rebellion, he had given them 
rain, harvests, &;c., and by these acts of his providence, St. Paul 
urges the fact of the goodness of God, who had thus mercifully re- 
garded them during their rebellion, as an inducement to the people of 
Lystra, to now trust in his goodness and be converted to his worship. 

However, the discourse of St. Paul, and Barnabas to the Lystrans, 
is so much abridged in the relation, that it is impossible to tell in 
what part of their address the words in controversy were used, and 
therefore we may not have paraphrased them correctly. 

One thing, however, must be clear, that to give the passage any 
value, such as that assigned it by the natural theologian, it should be 
addressed to atheists and not to idolaters, such as the Lystrans 
were, for that they had priests and temples, is evident from the text. 

The language of St. Paul in Romans i. 19, 20, is so little in favor 
of the theory of the natural theologians, that I claim it in support of 
those very opinions which I have heretofore advanced. 



60 

The verses are, "Because that which may be known of God is 
manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. 

"For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, 
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even his eternal powe?' and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." 
These words are neither more nor less than a positive justification 
of Hume's argument, that we can learn nothing more of God from 
the natural world, than that he possesses divine power and wisdom; 
for to these two attributes alone, does St. Paul seemingly restrict 
the inferential judgment that men might make from the inspection of 
the creation. His argument is distinctly this, that as men can infer 
the infinite power and divine existence of God, from the works he has 
made, so men are inexcusable that could at all liken or compare so 
divine and powerful a being to images made in the form or likeness 
of corruptible man, much less to those of birds, beasts, and reptiles, 
such as the ancient idolaters actually worshipped. 

The only possible cause of hesitation to this paraphrase, may be 
with those who are ignorant of the real significance of the Greek 
word deiorns, translated Godhead. As Christians, we use the word 
Godhead to comprehend all those attributes of Deity which we 
have learned from the Scriptures, but the heathen attached no such 
meaning to the Greek word, and it is, as understood by the heathen 
alone, that St. Paul uses the term. The word implies divine exist- 
ence, or an essence of being, superior to human nature, but conveys 
no determination whatever, as to the particular attributes that may 
characterise that state. 

There is no way by which we of Christendom, can approximate to 
a reasonable estimate of the value of Natural Theology, but by an at- 
tentive examination of those treatises on religious subjects that have 
been written by the heathen philosophers. 

But as it is impossible the general reader can undertake an ex- 
amination of the various writings of the ancient sages, I am glad 
to have the opportunity of showing that the truth of my assertion 
can be verified by the mere English reader, in the easy perusal of 
Cicero's Treatises on the Nature of the Gods, and his Tusculan Dis- 
putations, which have recently been re-published in England, in very 
excellent translations, and which may be readily procured in our 
own country. 

In the former of these works, more especially, the reader will see 
the real value of all the dogmas of the celebrated Greek sects, on 
the subject of religion, as understood by the most intellectual men 
of Cicero's age. Whatever had been first promulgated by Plato, by 



61 

Epicurus, or by Zeno, is there urged with all the corroborations of 
any value, that their most eminent disciples, during the lapse of 
two or three centuries, had been able to produce, in support of their 
respective systems. And these various speculations, sustained by 
the strongest arguments they could advance, are here exhibited by 
the hand of Cicero, himself, one of the most eminent philosophers 
of antiquity, in the full vigor of his genius, and under the further ad- 
vantage of being an Academic, the only sect of the time that was 
not dogmatic in their judgments. 

Let any one ponder on the views there given, as being the opin- 
ions entertained by as acute and intellectual men as the world has 
ever seen, and then the reader may pretty nearly determine what 
the intrinsic value of Natural Theology is, when unassisted by the 
theory of the Scriptures. And yet, notwithstanding the insufficient, 
often puerile, and sometimes most ridiculous arguments, there urged, 
it is most abundantly evident, from the very declarations of the phi- 
losophers themselves, that the theory of religion had not been de- 
duced from any philosophic view of nature, but depended alone on 
the traditions of their forefathers, who from immemorial time had 
been in possession of its dogmas no one could tell how.* 

In short, the sages of Greece or Rome, instead of discerning any 
one of the principles pertaining to the theory of religious obligations, 
were alone engaged in a severe intellectual contest with one another, 
on the question of fact alone, viz: is the theory of religion, are the 
doctrines concerning the gods, their providence, and the immortality 
of the soul, (which we have received from our ancestors,) true or not? 

On this subject different opinions were entertained, and on the 

•This admission is very distinctly made by Plato in several parts of his writ- 
ings, as the following extracts will sufficiently show. In the Timseus he ob- 
serves: 

"But to speak concerning the other demons (i. e. the visible gods) and to 
know their generation^ is a task beyond our ability to perform. It is, therefore, 
necessary in this case to believe in ancient men, who being the progeny of the 
gods, as they themselves assert, must have a clear knowledge of their parents. It is 
impossible, therefore, not to believe in the children of the gods, though they should 
speak without probable and necessari/ arguments, but as they declare that their nar- 
rations are about ajfairs to which they are naturally allied, it is proper that com- 
plying with the law, we should assent to their tradition. In this manner then, 
according to them, the generation of the gods is to be described: 

"That Ocean and Tethys wei-e the progeny of Heaven and Earth. That 
from thence Phorcys, Saturn, and Rhea, and such as subsist, together with 
these, were produced. That from Saturn and Rhea, Jupiter, Juno, and all 
such as we know, are called the brethern of these descended. And lastly, 
others which are reported to be the pro;[^eny of these," &c. 

"It is proper indeed, says Plato, (in his seventh epistle,) always to believe in 
ancient and sacred discourses which announce to us that the soul is immortal, 
and that it has judges of its conduct, and svffers the greatest ptmishments when it 
is liberated from the body." 



62 

value of their respective judgments, issue was joined by the differ- 
ent philosophic sects. 

As I can exhibit several distinct principles of much importance 
and interest by an epitome of Cicero's Treatise on the Nature of 
the Gods, I request the reader's attention to the opinions and doc- 
trines there stated. 

Q,. Lucilius Balbus, whom Cicero exhibits as the defender of the 
stoical tenets, was, according to him, "a great proficient in the doc- 
trine of the stoics, and esteemed equal to the most eminent of 
the Greeks in that part of knowledge." His entire discourse, 
which is much too long to be extracted, I have epitomized with all 
regard both to the order of the oration, as well as to exhibit the true 
force of all the arguments. He commences as follows: 

"Our sect, (the stoics,) divide the whole question concerning the 
immortal gods into four parts. First, that there are gods; secondly, 
what they are; thirdly, that the universe is governed by them, and 
lastly, that they regard mankind in particular." 

"The first point, I think, needs no proof; for what can be so plain 
and evident, when we behold the heavens and contemplate the ce- 
lestial bodies, as the existence of some supreme, divine intelligence 
by which they are governed," &c. 

Though Balbus says this first point needs no proof, it is the only 
point upon which he gives any rational proof, which is in a long de- 
tail, by showing the harmony, skill, and power, with which all ma- 
terial things are both constructed and continue to endure. His ar- 
guments are so far good, as showing the universe exhibits in every 
part, such evidences of an intelligent proceeding, that it is most un- 
reasonable not to believe that there are gods. 

Having shown that the construction of the universe justifies the 
theory that there are gods, Balbus proceeds to show that the gods have 
actually been seen and heard; which is related in the following words: 

"In the war with the Latins, when A. Posthumius, the dictator, 
attacked Octavius Mamilius, the Tusculan at Regillus, Castor and 
Pollux were seen fighting in our army, on horseback; and since that 
time the same deities gave notice of the defeat of Perseus to P. Va- 
tienus, grandfather of the present youth of that name, coming in the 
night to Rome, from his government of Reate, when two young 
men on white horses appeared to him, and told him Perseus was taken 
prisoner that day, &;c. Nor do we forget when the Locrians defeated 
the people of Croto in a great battle on the banks of the river Sagra, 
that it was known the same day at the Olympic games. The voices 
of the fauns have been often heard, and deities have appeared in 



63 

forms so visible that he who doubts it must be hardened in stupidity 
or impiety." 

"What do predictions and foreknowledge mean, but that future 
events are (actually) shown, pointed out, portended, and foretold to 
men. But though we should esteem fabulous what is said of Mopsus, 
Tiresias, Amphiaraus, Calchas,and Helenus, who would not have been 
delivered down to us as augurs, even in fable, if their art was despica- 
ble, are we not sufficiently apprised of the power of the gods by 
domestic examples. 

"Will not the temerity of P. Claudius, in the first Punic war, af- 
fect us, who, when the (sacred) poultry were let out of the coop and 
would not feed, ordered them to be thrown into the water, and jok- 
ing upon the gods, said with a sneer, let them drink since they will not 
eat; which piece of ridicule being followed by a victory over his fleet, 
cost him many tears, and brought great calamity on the Roman people. 
Did not his colleague, Junius, in the same war, lose his fleet in a 
tempest by disregarding the auspices'? Claudius, therefore, was con- 
demned by the people, and Junius killed himself. Coelias says that 
P. Flaminius, from his neglect of religion, fell at Thrasimenus; a 
loss which the public severely felt." 

Balbus next proceeds to show that our earth, as producing every 
thing from its substance, must have those properties in herself which 
she manifests in the constitution of any created being. As man, 
therefore, is an intelligent and rational being, so the earth that pro- 
duces him must also be intelligent and rational. Having by this 
mode of reasoning shown the earth to be intelligent and rational, he 
proceeds as follows: 

"The divinity of the earth being clearly perceived, we must ac- 
knowledge it likewise in the stars, which are formed from the bright- 
est and purest part of the ether, without a mixture of any other mat- 
ter, and being altogether hot and transparent, we may justly say 
they have life, sense, and understanding, 6lc. It is a natural in- 
ference to suppose the stars endued with such a degree of sense and 
understanding as places them in the rank of the gods, for it may be 
observed that they who inhabit countries of a pure, clear air, have 
a quicker apprehension, and a readier genius than those who live in 
a thick, foggy climate. It is thought, likewise, that the nature of 
the diet has an effect on the mind; therefore it is probable that the 
stars are^ possessed of an excellent understanding, because they are 
situated in the etherial part of the universe, and are nourished by 
the vapors of the earth and sea which are purified by their long 
passage to the heavens." 



64 

Having made some other observations of similar import with the 
preceding, he terminates his discourse upon this point by saying that 
"the existence of the gods appears so plain, that I can scarcely think 
that man in his senses who denies it." 

The next point to which the arguments of Balbus are directed, is 
to consider "ivhat the gods are?'''' 

"Upon this subject he observes, "Nothing is more difficult than to 
carry our thoughts from the directions of our eyes. This difficulty 
hath prevailed on the ignorant, vulgar, and indeed on some philoso- 
phers, not unlike them, who never think of the gods but in the image 
of the human figure, the weakness of which opinion Cotta hath so 
well confuted, that I need not add my thoughts upon it. But as the 
previous idea we have of the Deity comprehends two things; the 
one that he is animated, the other, that nothing in nature exceeds 
him. I do not see any thing more consistent with this idea, than to 
attribute a mind and divinity to the world the most excellent of all 
beings. Epicurus may be as merry with this notion as he pleases. 
Let him say that a voluble, round deity, is to him incomprehensible; 
yet he shall never dissuade me from the principle which he himself 
approves, for he is of the opinion there are gods, in allowing that 
there must be a nature somewhere most excellently perfect. It fol- 
lows then, that the world has life, sense, reason, and understanding, 
and is consequently a deity.* But this shall soon be made more 
manifest by the operation of this efficient cause." 

Balbus then goes into a ^ree discourse upon the harmony, symmetry, 
utility, of all creation, and considers it implies a constant intelligent 
providence, and which he insists upon as specific proofs of the 
rationality and prudence of the stars, the earth, the universe, and 
whatever else he esteemed to be gods. 

But besides these gods he recognizes sundry other objects or na- 
tures that had been deified by their ancestors in consideration of the 
benefits derived from them, "for they were persuaded that whatever 
was of great utility to human kind must proceed from divine good- 
ness, and the name of the deity was applied to that which the deity 
produced; as when we call corn, Ceres, and wine, Bacchus; and that 
also in which there was any singular virtue," &;c.; as Faith, Wis- 
dom, Virtue, Honor, Liberty, Victory, &c. 

"It has been a general custom, likewise, that men who have done 

* There is some reason to suppose that by the "world" Balbus means in this 
passage, the whole universe, but as from his anterior views upon the stars as 
contradistinguished from the world, he must consider the world synonymous 
with our earth; it seems almost impossible to unravel the inconsistency of his 
discourse. 



65 

important service to the public, should be exalted to heaven by fame 
and consent. Thus Hercules, Castor and Pollux, jEsculapius and 
Liber, became gods. Thus, also, Romulus, &;c. They are justly 
esteemed as deities, since their souls subsist and enjoy eternity, from 
whence they are perfect and immortal beings," &c. 

Balbus then, attacks the vulgar theology of Greece and Rome, and 
reprobates the stories of Ctelum, Saturn, Jupiter, &c. — which he 
calls impious fables, and attempts to shew them to have a physical 
origin and significance, which is not worth detailing. 

On the third point of investigation, Balbus observes, "I am now to 
show that the world is governed by the providence of the Gods." 
Here, again, he shews that the world is not only framed with skill, 
wisdom, design, but is unceasingly sustained in its course and order 
of phenomena; and from this he infers the general providence of the 
gods in a rational manner, saying thus: 

"Is he worthy to be called a man, who attributes to chance, not 
to an intelligent cause, the constant motion of the heavens, the reg- 
ular courses of the stars, the agreeable proportion and connection of 
all things, conducted with so much reason, that our reason itself, is 
lost in the inquiry. When we see machines move artificially as a 
sphere, a clock, or the like, do we doubt whether they are the pro- 
ductions of reason? And when we behold the heavens moving with 
a prodigious celerity, and causing an annual succession of the differ- 
ent seasons of the year, which vivify and preserve all things, can we 
doubt that this world is directed, I will not say only by reason, but 
by reason excellent and divine?" &c. Balbus then goes into further 
proof of these particulars, which are nothing else than reiterations 
of the fact that the harmony, fitness, and propriety, evident in all 
things, shew them to be both made and sustained by infinite wis- 
dom and power. 

Upon the last point, that there is aspecial providence, or one that 
regards individuals, he infers from the peculiar organization of man, 
and the things that contribute directly, or indirectly, to his gratifi- 
cation and comfort, whether, from intellectual or physical sources 
of every kind. "But the strongest proof, in my opinion," says 
Balbus, "that the providence of the gods takes care of us, is from 
the art of divination. We receive many intimations from the fore- 
sight and presages of augurs and aruspiccs,* from oracles, pro- 
phesies, dreams, and prodigies, and it often happens that, by these 

* The science of the aruspices was so eminently absurd, that Cato, the Censor, 
used to say he wondered how one aruspex could look at another with.-vnt 
laughing out. 
9 



66 

means, events have proved happy to men, and eminent dangers have 
been avoided." 

"Besides, the gods not only provide for mankind universally, but 
for particular men. You may bring this universality to a less num- 
ber, and that less number to particulars, &;c. Thus, the gods take 
care of the whole world, then of its great divisions, then of particu- 
lar places, such as Rome, Athens, &;c., and lastly, of particular 
men, such as Curius, Fabricius, Cato, Scipio," &;c. 

"Rome and Greece have produced many illustrious men, whom 
we cannot believe were so, without the assistance of the Deity: which 
is the reason that the poets. Homer, in particular, joined their chief 
heroes, Ulysses, Agamemnon, Diomedes, Achilles, to certain deities, 
as companions in their adventures and dangers." 

"Besides, the frequent appearances of the gods, as 1 have before 
mentioned, demonstrate their regard for cities and particular men. 
This, is also apparent, indeed, from the foreknowledge of events, 
which we receive, either sleeping or waking. We are, likewise, 
forewarned of many things, by the entrails of victims, by presages, 
and many other means, which have been long observed with such ex- 
actness, as to produce an art of divination." 

And with these views the argument terminates. 

It must be evident to the reader that notwithstanding all the evi- 
dence exhibited by Balbus, the only portion of the least value, is 
that amount which we have laid before him in our first chapter, viz: 
that there is an evident proof that the universe has been produced 
by an intelligent power, who sustains them by a general providence. 
The proofs, therefore, are alone of that value by which the theory oi 
atheism is clogged with an insuperable objection. But they establish 
nothing further — they neither show whether there are one or many 
gods, and they fail altogether in exhibiting any particular providence. 
The theory of Natural Religion, therefore, consists alone of unwar- 
rantable assumptions, and which are shaken to the very foundation, 
by the moral or metaphysical objections of the atheist, the Epi- 
curean, or by the rationally cautious Academic. 

Weak and unsubstantial as they are, they never imposed upon 
the understanding of the independent philosophers of antiquity, who 
have exposed the full absurdity of the system, w ith as much dis- 
cernment as we can exercise at the present day, and had not the 
frauds of the priesthood, the arbitrary teaching of dogmatical phi- 
losophers, and the policy of magistrates, have interfered to prop up 
the fantastic theory of Natural Religion, it would have perished 



67 

with the first dawning of science and wisdom, among the philoso- 
phers of antiquity.* 

Though 1 need not give any confutation of the theory of Natural 
Rehgion by the hand of the ancient heathen sages, yet I think it 
may answer a double purpose to extract the commencement of the 
Academic philosopher's discourse, concerning the preceding exhi- 
bition of Balbus, as it shows not only that they had truly estimated 
its weakness, but that the discussions of the ancient philosophers on 
religious subjects, were exactly the same as with us of the present 
day, that is to say, they were in no respect, original investigations, 
but simple discussions on the prejudices of their education. The 
theory of their religion, they had received from immemorial time, 
through their parents and instructors, and the philosophers were in- 

* As an instance of the unreasonable intolerance of many of the ancient 
philosophers concerning a free discussion of theological points, I subjoin the 
following view of Plato, as set forth in the legislation for his imaginary re- 
public. 

"When you and I, as arguments, that there are gods, adduce the sun and 
moon, the stars and the earth, as gods and divine natures; others, persuad- 
ed by these wise men, (ironically speaking of young men,) will say that they 
are earth and stones, incapable of paying any attention to human affairs, though 
they are celebrated as divinities in discourses, well calculated to procure 
persuasion." 

To this observation of Plato's, his friend Clinias replies, "Such an assertion 
(what we have put in italics) would be of a dangerous nature, even if I was the 
only one that heard it, but now since it is heard" by many, it is still more dan- 
gerous." 

To this ensues a most sophistical series of assumed metaphysical principles 
which are intended to convince the young that there are both gods, and that 
they exercise providence; but least any one sliould remain unconverted by 
the arguments used by Plato, he proposes in all the spirit of the inquisition 
that they be made amenable to the following punishments. 

"Since, therefore, the impious are thus distinguislied, (i. e. by certain dis- 
tinct classes,) those who become such through folly without a vicious disposition 
and corrupt manners, the judge shall confine in the prison for correction, /or not 
less than Jive years. But during this time let no one of the citizens converse 
with them except those who associate for the purpose of admonishing and 
procuring safety to the soul. When the period arrives that they arc to be lib- 
erated from their bonds, if any one among them shall appear to" be more mod- 
est in his manners, let him dwell together with the modest, but if it appears 
that he is not, and he is again condemned for the same crime, let him be pun- 
ished with death." 

"With respect to such as in addition to their believing that there are no gods, 
or that they are negligent, or easily appeased, are of a savage disposition, des- 
pising mankind, alluring the souls of many while living, and asserting that 
they can allure the souls of the dead; likewise pretending that they can per- 
suade the gods by sacrifices, prayers, and incantations; and endeavoring bv 
these means to destroy private persons, whole families and cities for the sake 
of their riches— among such as those, whoever shall be condemned, let him be 
fettered in the prison which is in the middle of the region, and let no froeborn 
person be ever allowed to visit him, but let tl)e food appointed for Iiim by the 
guardians of the laws be brought him by servants. But when he (iies. let him 
be hurled beyond Die boundaries of the region, and left without a tomb. And 
if any freeborn ])crson shall bury him, let him (the buryer) sustain the pun- 
ishment of impiety bv any one who is willing to indict it."— P/a/o's Laws, h. 
X. vol. ii. 29.5 to 323. 



68 

tensely occupied in attempting to ascertain whether these dogmas 
were true or false. 

Cotta, who, in Cicero's Treatise concerning the Nature of the 
Gods, represents the academics, observes, in commencing his dis- 
course, at the beginning of the third book, as follows: 

"But before I enter on the subject, 1 have a word to say concerning 
myself, for I am greatly influenced, Balbus, by your authority, and 
your exhortation at the conclusion of your discourse, to remember I 
was Cotta, and high priest, by which 1 presume you intimated that 
I should defend the religion and ceremonies which we received from 
our ancestors. Truly, I always have, and always shall, defend them, 
nor shall the arguments either of the learned or unlearned, ever re- 
move the opinions I have imbibedyrom them, (i. e. his ancestors,) con- 
cerning the worship of the immortal gods. In matters of religion, 
I submit to the rules of the high priests, T. Coruncanius, P. Scipio, 
and P. Scsevola, not to the sentiments of Zeno, Cleanthes, or Chry- 
sippus, and I pay a greater regard to what C. Laelius, one of our au- 
gurs and wise men has written concerning religion, than to the most 
eminent of the stoics, and as the religion of the Romans at first, con- 
sisted in sacrifices and divination by birds, to which have since 
been added predictions, if the interpreters of the sybiline oracles, or 
the aruspices have foretold any event from portents and prodigies, 
I have ever thought these articles should not be despised. I have 
been even persuaded that Romulus, by instituting divination, and 
Numa,by establishing sacrifices, laid the foundation of Rome, which 
undoubtedly would never had risen to such a height of grandeur, if 
the gods had not been made propitious by this (our Roman) worship. 
"These, Balbus, are my sentiments, both as apriest, and as Cotta. 
But you must bring me to your opinion by the force of your reason; 
for a philosopher should prove to me the religion he would have me 
embrace, but I mzist believe the religion of our ancestors without any 
proof.^'' 

What proof, says Balbus, do you require of me? 
You have urged, says Cotta, four articles: First, that there are 
gods; secondly, what they are; thirdly, that the universe is governed 
by them; lastly, that they regard man in particular. Thus, if I re- 
member rightly, you divided your discourse. 

Exactly so, replies Balbus, but let us see what you require. 

Let us examine, says Cotta, every proposition. The first, that 

there are gods, cannot be contested but by the most impious; nay, 

though it can never be rooted out of my mijid, yet I believe it on the 

authority of our ancestors; and not on the proofs you have brought. 



69 

Why do you require a proof from me, says Balbus, if you be- 
lieve it? Because, says Cotta, I come to this disputation as if I had 
never thought of the gods, or heard any thing concerning them. 
Take me as a disciple wholly ignorant, and answer my questions. 
Begin then, replies Balbus. I would first know, says Cotta, why 
you have been so long in proving the existence of the gods which 
you said was a point so very evident to all that there was no need of 
any proof? 

Here Balbus observes that he had followed the practice of the 
lawyers, who use every argument they can think of. But this Cotta 
considered very inapplicable to a philosophical discourse, and then 
resumes the continuance of his observations on Balbus's previous dis- 
course. 

"It was because you did not think that the existence of the gods 
was so evident as you could wish, you therefore brought so many 
proofs. It was sufficient for me to believe the dogma on the tradi- 
tion of our ancestors; and since you disregard authorities and ap- 
peal to reason, permit my reason to defend them against yours. The 
proofs on which you found the existence of the gods, tend only to 
render a proposition doubtful, that, in my opinion, (i. e. the preju- 
dice of education received from ancestors^) is not so," ike. &c.; he 
then proceeds to overthrow the arguments of Balbus in long detail. 
The extract I have now made from Cicero's Treatise on the Na- 
ture of the Gods, fully justify the opinions I have advanced concern- 
ing the true value of the inferences to be made from Natural The- 
ology, and we have them fairly and honestly stated by Cotta. Here 
then we see an eminently learned man, who performed the function 
of high priest, who was interested in the ceremonies of religion as 
believing them to be important to the welfare of his country; and 
yet with all these inducements to confirm his avowed prejudice in 
favor of the existence and providence of the gods, he declares that 
the arguments brought forward by the stoics, the Natural Theolo- 
gians of that day, to establish those particulars, were so far from 
confirming his prejudice that they had only tended to render the subject 
more doubtful. 

The appeal made by Balbus, ^^rememher that you are Cotta,''^ in- 
volves a consideration of some importance as determining the great 
value to be assigned to the judgment of that philosopher or of the 
sect he there represents. Cotta, as an Academic, was in nothing 
dogmatic; and, therefore, was at liberty to side either with the Stoics 
who argued for the providence of the gods, or with the Epicureans 
who denied that fact, according to whichever opinion was best sus- 



70 

tained by argument. There could be, therefore, no arbitrator more 
distinctly impartial to decide upon the dogmas of the two opposing 
sects. And the value of his judgment, so far as we can regard authori- 
ty, is very important, in the fact of his being a heathen who lived before 
the promulgation of Christianity. 

Hence we not only have the disinterested testimony of a priest 
and a philosopher as to the true value of Natural Theology, and of 
Natural Religion, but we have the clearest proof how deeply the 
traditionary doctrines of religion were established in the habits and 
prejudices of the ancient heathen nations. Such was their force 
and power that they maintained a dominion over the human mind, 
though deficient in all those evidences by which the subject should 
have been established. 

But to return to the justification of those views which we have 
maintained throughout the present chapter. Suppose that the good- 
ness or excellent nature of God is to be discerned by the medium of 
his works, of what consequence would that concession be to the ad- 
vocates of Natural Religion.^ Will such a concession imply that we 
are under his moral government? Does he exercise particular provi- 
dence towards us? Does he hear and regard our prayers? With- 
out we have proof on these points, the discovery that he is possessed 
of abstract goodness is a mere conclusion to a curious, though entire- 
ly unimportant question; for in what manner is his goodness and 
providence, so exhibited to mankind, as to induce them, with any 
rationality of theory, to institute any scheme of religious worship 
and service before him? As we have no reason whatever to infer 
that he does regard us, so we can have none to infer that he 
accepts, much less that he requires from us any religious homage 
whatever. 

It is impossible for us to infer, from any view of material things, 
that God maintains any moral connexion with mankind. It is true, 
we have established the fact of his existence and of his omnipotence. 
He has, it is true, constituted the seasons of the year, and given the 
world the light and heat of the sun, fertilizing rains, abundant har- 
vests, <fec. — these blessings are equally enjoyed by the beasts of the 
field, who are altogether irrational, and who, like man, participate 
in his every temporal comfort. If God's providence be thus exer- 
cised to the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the 
seas, equally, with whatever man receives, there is no distinction in 
God's providence between rational man and the irrational beasts. 
How then can we infer that man, as a rational or moral being, has 
any particular connexion with God, or God with him? I am unable 



71 

to see any misjudgment in the opinion that asserts there is no particu- 
lar providence to be discerned in the government of human affairs.* 

The strangest matter to me in studying this subject, was the objec- 
tions that my Christian friends made in the first instance against my 
views, on the subject of particular providence, as being contrary to 
the Scriptures. Nothing is clearer to me than that the Scripture 
teaches the very same doctrine that T have maintained. The Scrip- 
ture does indeed teach the doctrine of a particular providence in the 
most express manner; but does the Scripture teach any where that 
the providence of God is discernable to our eyes? The Scripture 
teaches expressly the contrary, and which I could sustain by many 
arguments and inferences, had 1 the space. f But as 1 apprehend 
this subject can be sufficiently exhibited by one statement, I shall 
confine myself to this single instance. 

The three friends who visited Job in his affliction, from first to 
last, maintain the excellent essence and being of God, they exalt 
his majesty, justice, and providence, and find the reason for Job's ca- 
lamity in the judgment of God, upon his concealed iniquity. Job 
strongly vindicates himself from the charge of being guilty of any 
particular hidden sin, though he confesses his natural weakness and 
infirmity. He then argues directly against their doctrine that God 
does govern the world by a visible providence. See Job xxi. xxiv. &c. 

In the concluding chapter, where God is introduced, speaking 
audibly, he there openly disavows the arguments of Job's three 
friends, by saying, his wrath was kindled against them, not for hav- 
ing condemned Job, but because they had not spoken of God the thing 
that is right, as his servant Job had spoken. And this cause of 
God's displeasure is twice distinctly announced in this chapter. 

If any one will compare the arguments used by Job's friends^ 
with those that our moral writers of the present day insist upon, 
as proving God's particular providence, they will find them the 
very same in all their scope and bearing. 

*Lord Bollngbroke observes, (vol. v. 427,) <'I neither deny nor affirm particu- 
lar providences. The supposition of such things has given occasion to much 
lyin^, to much flattery, to much uncharitablencss, to much superstition and en- 
thusiasm. When the votive tablets of those who had escaped drowning were 
showed to Diagoras, (the atheist,) at Samothrace, he asked, where were the 
tablets of those who had perished at sea?" 

The same philosopher in an ensuing page, (439, ) further says "that we have 
not, in philosophical speculation, in any history, except that of the Bible, 
(an important concession, very worthy of particular remembrance,) nor in 
our own experience, sufficient grounds to establish the doctrine of particu- 
lar providences." 

t Such as Jeremiah, xii. 1 and 2; Habakuk i. 13. These two instances are 
worthy of particular consideration, since both these prophets there inquire 
of Jehovah on this subject. The Psalms also abound with authorities on this 
point. 



72 

Finally, to close my argument upon the subjects of this chapter^ 
I insist upon it as a sound deduction, that if to fabricate the natu- 
ral and moral world, as it now exists, was not an act inconsistent 
with the perfections of a supposed infinitely good God, for he is 
supposed to be so by the Natural Theologians, we have no right 
whatever, to infer the necessity of any compensatory scheme involv- 
ing a future existence. 

The only reason by which a future state is avowedly inferred, is, 
that it is necessary for the vindication of God's infinite perfections, 
and justice; by the manifestation of those judgments, by which the 
good shall be rewarded, and the bad punished. This then, distinctly 
admits that God has not exercised moral dominion or providence 
in this life, and if this be not inconsistent with his attributes at the 
present time, I am utterly unable to discern any reason why it 
should be so at any other time. 1 do not deny that it may be so, 
but I utterly deny that we can derive from any view of natural 
things, either the reasonableness, much less the necessity, of such a 
hypothesis. 

Having as I conceive, now taken a sufficient view of this subject, 
it appears to me that Natural Theology teaches nothing but the mere 
reasonableness of inferring the world has been made by intelligent 
power, and that Natural Religion stands upon neither reason, ar- 
gument, or rationality of inference. If I am in error, it is from the 
insufficiency of the arguments advanced by the advocates of such 
theories, whether deist or Christian. Whether the subject is capa- 
ble of being vindicated to the conviction of our understandings, is a 
matter I shall not pretend to determine, though 1 believe such an 
exhibition to be impossible in consequence of deliberating upon the 
objections of the atheists, by whom I confess I have been much en- 
lightened, while studying this subject.* 

But however this may be, we have now arrived at that stage of 
our discussion, when we are sufficiently enabled to come to a distinct 
conclusion concerning the value of those subjects, whose merits we 
have been discussing in our two previons chapters. 

* Having thus shown that the theory of Natural Religion cannot explain how 
the dogmas of religion have originated among men, I could, if I had tlie space, 
now go on and show that they must have originated in Revelation. The an- 
alysis of Paganism, shows, that notwithstanding the seeming diversities of 
their different modes of worship, they are all distinctly referable to but one 
system, which is based upon principles that have no analogies in nature, but 
which we find to be identical with the annunciations of the Scripture. But 
as we cannot pretend to make any discourse upon this subject, we must i-efer 
to the writings of Bryant, Faber, and others, who have devoted themselves to 
its consideration. 



73 

According to the plan, proposed in the commencement of the 
first chapter, we have made a thorough scrutiny, concerning the 
merits of Natural Theology, and of Natural Religion, aided by a 
continual reference to the wisdom and intelligence of illustrious men, 
whether of ancient or modern times, who have written on these sub- 
jects. With all the liglit that has been thrown on them, we are un- 
able to come to any other justifiable conclusion, than that, with the 
exception of the single fact of the existence of one or of several 
powerful and intelligent beings, the creators of the universe, the 
theory of Natural Religion, rests upon no rational foundation, what- 
ever. 

But, least we may lose sight of the principles we have discussed, 
and the conclusions we have made, by the use of an expression, so 
general, as the preceding sentence, I beg leave to state distinctly, 
that our investigation of the theory of Natural Theology, and of 
Natural Religion, completely justifies the following conclusions: 

1st. That our universe and all it contains, is the production of in- 
telligent power, but whether of one or more gods, we cannot deter- 
mine. 

2d. Of this god or gods, we have not the smallest idea, except 
that he or they possess great power and intelligence, and it may be 
important to add, we are altogether unable to discern their posses- 
sion of excellent attributes, such as benevolence, mercy, justice, &;c. 

3d. We are unable to perceive that the moral affairs of human 
life, are superintended by any particular providence, and that univer- 
sal experience opposes such a notion. 

4th. That there is not only no proof, but on the contrary, it is 
against all fact, and the evidence of our senses, to believe that the in- 
telligent principle in man is immortal, and consequently, we have 
not the smallest reason to justify the theory of future reward or 
punishment. 

It, therefore, must be abundantly evident, that from the examina- 
tion of all things appreciable by our intellect, we are unable to at- 
tain to the least knowledge, concerning the Creator of the universe. 
Consequently, if we are entirely ignorant of his nature, the character 
of his attributes, and his final purposes, it is impossible for any one 
to say, what is consistent, what is inconsistent with his unknown na- 
ture, or what is good, or evil, in the agencies exercised under hia 
system of general providences. 

It is, therefore, very clear that the theory or the facts of the Chris- 
tian religion, cannot be investigated, nor their merits determined, by 
any human conceit, concerning the nature and attributes of the Deity, 
10 



74 

for if that nature be altogether unknown, anomalous, incomprehen- 
sible, who can pretend to say, whether Christianity is consistent or 
inconsistent, with a nature both unknown and incomprehensible. 

Having thus disposed of Natural Theology, and Natural Religion, 
two of those tests, commonly used towards appreciating the truth of 
the Christian Religion, we shall now pass on to the consideration of 
another subject, of equally important application ,in the investigation 
of Scripture credibility. 



CHAPTER III. 

ON THE NATURE OF MORAL DISTINCTIONS, AND THE INSCRUTABIL- 
ITY OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY. 

As we have demonstrated with sufficient clearness, the utter im- 
possibility of estimating the procedure of the Creator, in any res- 
pect, whatever, we might now proceed to investigate the truth of the 
Christian Religion, without being embarrassed with any of those 
unreasonable objections, that the atheists and deists have advanced 
against its theory, as being inconsistent with the divine perfections. 
As we have abundantly shown, we have no just notions, whatever, 
of the nature of God, so those that are commonly entertained as 
such, are mere suggestions of imagination and prejudice, without 
any foundation whatever. 

But, notwithstanding all that has been done, we cannot yet pro- 
ceed with our investigation, in consequence of a perverse system of 
metaphysical ethics, that bears so directly upon our future path, that 
we cannot, prudently, advance to the consideration of our subject, 
until we have effectually disposed of this lurking adversary. Were 
we now to commence a discourse upon the true merits of the Chris- 
tian dispensation, we should be presently embarrassed with objec- 
tions arising from the theory of the IMMUTABILITY OF MORAL 
DISTINCTIONS, which would bring up, under a new aspect, the 
past discussion concerning God's excellent moral attributes, in a 
more perplexed controversy, than as exhibited in the preceding 
pages. 

The means by which an ingenious and learned deist escapes from 
the consequences that he foresees, inevitably follow the demolition 
of the theory of Natural Theology, and of Natural Religion, and re- 
news the whole controversy, imder the theory of the immutability of 
moral distinctions, are so very plausible, that it is impossible to pre- 
serve our present advantageous position, but by correctly appreci- 
ating the true merits of this last subject. The deist, seeing the 
fallacies of Natural Theology, and Natural Religion fiiirly exposed, 
will, almost immediately, shift his position, and say, I admit that 
the Creator of the universe is altogether incomprehensible, who de- 
nies this? But God is positively represented in the Scriptures, as 
having particular attributes, and as having proceeded in such and 



76 

sucli a manner. Now, in these statements, we have data given us, 
upon which we can reason whether the statements made in the Scrip- 
tures, are credible or not. If we cannot estimate the moral pro- 
ceeding of God, as laid down in the Scripture, how can we judge of 
Christianity. Religion must be approved for its moral excellence, or 
rejected for its want of such excellence, and the advocates of Chris- 
tianity, continually urge that argument on us. 

I shall not stop to expose the assumptions, and the sophistry of 
this position, for I think the better plan will be, to investigate the 
theory of moral distinctions itself, and show what its true merits are, 
for it is a subject that has been exceedingly misunderstood, both by 
deist and Christian. 

As our argument, hitherto, has been to show God to be wholly in- 
comprehensible to man, so our present discourse on moral distinc- 
tions, is but a corollary to the deduction of the preceding chapters, 
viz: that man is so limited in his capacities, as an intellectual being, 
that all his knowledge is merely relative, and in nothing absolute. 
Hence, our knowledge being proportionate only to our particular 
condition of being, so we cannot appreciate any other existence or 
conditions of existence, beyond our own sphere. 

There is a prodigious mistake among men, on this subject, for as 
they almost universally consider their ideas of moral distinctions, to 
be absolute, and not merely relative, so, under this delusion, they 
have presumed to judge of the proceedings of God, as implicated in 
the biblical writings, by what they have supposed to be immutable 
principles, in determining all moral action. 

It is under these erroneous views of moral distinction, that the 
hostility of atheists and deists to the Scriptures, is chiefly brought into 
eflective operation. For, as long as they can, in any way, direct or in- 
direct, represent God to have acted in the scheme of Christianity, un- 
like to what a good man would be supposed to have done, so long 
will they recur to such an exposition, and very often with an unhap- 
py influence, for the honest sceptic, unwilling to believe God to be 
less moral than himself, comes to the unwarrantable conclusion that 
the bible, that authorises certain exhibitions of Deity, must be, for 
that reason, a forgery by knaves and imposters. 

For the most part, when men have once taken this view of the 
subject, whether from their own misjudgment, or from the sugges- 
tions of others, it is in vain to appeal to the points we have already 
established, in our previous chapters. We have there proved, that 
the Creator of the universe is incomprehensible, except in his attri- 
butes of infinite intelligence and power, and therefore, it is no beg- 



77 

ging of the question, to assert it is impossible for man to scrutinize 
the actual morality of God's proceeding. Is it not alone sufficient 
that we should ascertain the fact, whether the Scriptures are a reve- 
lation to us from God or not, and to decide on that subject, accord- 
ing to the amount of testimony that is procurable on that point. It 
is all in vain. I have ever found it useless to attempt to persuade 
the deists, or even persons merely sceptical, to examine Christianity 
by this rational proceeding, they will rush into a discussion of the 
subject upon abstract views, and decide upon its merits, by princi- 
ples derived, as they assert, from the immutability of moral dis- 
tinctions. 

Yet, at the same time that I condemn the practice of deists and 
sceptics in this particular, I must add that they are not a little jus- 
tified by the views largely entertained by many Christians on this 
subject. For nothing has been more generally maintained, and 
with greater dogmatism among them, than that moral distinctions 
are of an immutable character; and this being the case, it is very 
natural that the deists should alike use the theory, though with a 
great difference in their mode of application. 

As the doctrine is, therefore, common to many Christians, as well 
as to many deists, it is necessary to ascertain the full merits of the 
system. 1, therefore, shall now proceed to make an investigation to 
ascertain distinctly what is our knowledge of right and wrong, con- 
sidered abstractedly; are moral distinctions absolutely and immuta- 
bly fixed and true, or what is their real value? 

Though there has been always a dispute among philosophers from 
a remote antiquity concerning the essence of virtue or morality, and 
whether moral distinctions be immutably true, or only so relatively, 
I shall, notwithstanding the antiquity of the controversy, mention 
the disputants on this question, by appellations that have an origin 
so late as the scholastic ages of Christendom; to wit, the Realists and 
Nominalists; for these terms imply appropriate distinctions which we 
are unable to find in the use of other words. Indeed it is but justice to re- 
sume the names of the ancient scholastics, as the subject of our present 
discourse is to be taken up pretty nearly in the condition in which 
it was left by them at the commencement of the reformation by 
Luther. The all-absorbing interest of that great moral revolution 
abruptly put a stop to all mere philosophic discussion, and compelled, 
as it were, all men of any intellectual pretensions to enlist tliem- 
selves as parties in that great controversy that involved not only their 
civil liberties but the essential principles of the Christian faith. 

Since that time, but little attention has been paid to those subjects 



78 

once so keenly discussed by the realists and nominalists, and the 
crowded important events of succeeding centuries, has nearly 
effaced from the recollection of the philosophic world, any true idea 
of the merits of this once famous controversy, for the prevailing 
opinion of the last two centuries has been that it was a strange dis- 
pute among the logicians of former times, concerning subtilities of 
no importance whatever. This mistaken notion of the present day 
is apparently justified by the meagre relations of moral and theo- 
logical historians who have copied and copied from one another, with- 
out the least reference to the merits of the controversy, during the 
last two hundred years. 

But, in truth, the dispute between the realists and nominalists 
concerned points which, whether as pertaining to philosophy or re- 
ligion, involve almost every principle belonging to these most im- 
portant subjects; and without a clear apprehension of this matter, it 
is almost impossible to avoid falling into error and confusion. 

How the philosophers of modern times could suppose the disputes 
between the realists and nominalists to be a mere logomachy upon 
subtle trifles, would not be easy to explain, if we did not know that 
men too often express themselves dogmatically upon subjects which 
they have neither examined nor understood. And the only excuse 
for modern neglect of this important subject is, that if we regard 
this famous controversy as a mere logical dispute, under which form 
it is chiefly presented to our eyes, it seems wholly inadequate to ac- 
count for the excitement that prevailed among the disputants. But 
ought not modern philosophers to have considered that a controversy 
in which the most intellectual men of former times were parties, 
and in which emperors, popes, and councils interfered, could not, 
from this very amount of excitement, be any thing else than a sub- 
ject that involved the most important consequences. 

But as I have no room to digress upon this matter, I shall, as 
briefly as possible, bring the doctrines of the realists and nominalists 
before the reader. He will then be able to appreciate those philo- 
sophic views that will necessarily arise from a discussion of the sub- 
ject of moral distinctions under the conflicting theories of these an- 
cient sects. For to them the dispute directly belongs, and without 
their distinctive appellations, we could not proceed but with greater 
labor of exposition, and the use of other designations, but which I 
have already stated, I know of none so good; 

The ancient logico-metaphysicians did not consider the term idea 
to be as it is regarded at the present day, synonymous with notion, 
perception, or apprehension, but they believed that the ideas or no- 



79 

tions of the mind were produced by ideas, images, or phantasms that 
were out of the mind, and which, by some incomprehensible pro- 
cess were actually received into the mind, and there perfected into 
principles of thought. 

According to Plato those ideas which constituted the types and 
forms of all things, were eternal and ever present to the divine 
mind. Emanating from this eternal source, they determined the 
formation of material things, and from which they flowed, as it were, 
constantly into the human mind. 

Aristotle, the disciple of Plato, modified this doctrine in the fol- 
lowing particular. He affirmed that the primitive ideas of Plato, 
had no existence independent of matter, but that they were impress- 
ed or absorbed into matter, when the Creator saw fit to organize it. 
Though the reader may be unable to understand this theory, we 
shall make no attempt to render it more intelligible. It is alone 
sufficient to know, that the disciples of Plato and Aristotle, did be- 
lieve that ideas had actual existence without the human mind, that 
they were either eternally present to the divine mind, or that they 
were co-existent with the organization of material forms, being in- 
separably united with them, and having actual or real existence in 
them. 

The Stoic philosophers, however much they w«re involved in the 
common metaphysical errors of those ancient times, seem to have 
perceived the absurdity of the real existence which was imputed to 
universal ideas, but I am ignorant how far they proceeded in con- 
futing the doctrine.* It is, however, unnecessary for us to investi- 
gate the subject, for in the incursions of the barbarian nations, that 
destroyed the civilization of the Roman empire, all science and phi- 
losophy in Europe perished. With the revival of literature in the 
middle ages, the writings of Aristotle again produced the ancient 
theory of the reality of ideas, and as the only science of the day 
was found in the ecclesiastical communities of the Church of Rome, 
their expositions of Christian doctrine largely partook of the pre- 
vailing philosophy, and the system became riveted, as it were, upon 
the human mind, under the sanctions of religion. But as it is im- 
possible to speculate and explain, without, at the same time, discuss- 
ing first principles, so it soon happened that men of superior intel- 
lectual perceptions, or what is more likely those who had caught a 

* Socrates admirably exposed the nonentity of universal or abstract ideas, 
though I should think he was not aware of the value of his arguments. At 
any rate I know ofno better objections than those advanced by him in the Meno 
of Plato, the Euthydemus of Xenophon's Memorabilia, as well as in various 
other places recorded by these two WTiters. 



80 

glimpse of the true drift of the Scripture writings, saw the absurdity 
of certain of Aristotle's doctrines, and began to dispute and to deny 
more or less of the positions and arguments of those who followed 
his authority. 

This dispute, however remotely it may have commenced, gradually 
became more serious and important, and in the early part of the 
eleventh century, was well known by the contest between two 
sects of logical metaphysicians, who assumed the peculiar appella- 
tions of Realists and Nominalists. 

These names were given to the parties from the following cir- 
cumstances. Those who followed Plato and Aristotle, and believed 
ideas and essences to be eternal and real, were called Realists. 

The other party, though they might agree in some particulars 
with the Realists, utterly disputed that universal or general ideas, 
could have an actual or real existence. They affirmed that what^the 
Realists called universals, were nothing but mere terms, words, or 
names. Hence, their distinctive appellation of Nominalists, from 
the Latin word nomen, a name. 

That the reader may understand this subject with greater dis- 
tinctness, I must inform him that an universal idea is that idea 
which we have of many individuals or particulars, as comprehended 
under a single name or term. Thus man, as a universal, repre- 
sents all mankind; tree, as a universal, represents all trees; horse, 
as a universal, represents all horses, and so with other things, to an 
almost endless enumeration.* 

As long as the ancient Realists confined their discourse to indi- 
vidual things, there was nothing in the doctrine to forbid the notion 
that there might be an eternal exemplar of that idea, but when they 
spoke of universal ideas, it was utterly incomprehensible that there 
could be any single real idea of that universality. For instance, 
there might be the real idea of a willow tree, of an oak tree, and of 
every individual species of tree, but that there could be a universal 
idea which should, under a single form, represent all the various and 
difl!erent trees upon the face of the earth, was altogether incredible; 
and so in like manner with any other of those ideas called universal, 
by the Realists, whether material or spiritual. In consequence of 
the evident absurdity of the thing, the Nominalists contended there 
could be no universal ideas, and that those which the Realists called 

*Universal ideas, are now termed abstract ideas, but the change of name does 
not alter their nature. The notions of modern metaphysicians on the subject 
of abstract ideas, is fully as absurd, and mischievous to sound philosophy,5as 
they were when they were called universals, unless, indeed, they are recog- 
nized to be merely like algebraic expressions. 



81 

such, were nothing more than names, words, terms, without any ac- 
tual existence whatever. 

If the NominaHsts had been permitted to develope their tlieory, 
without obstruction, I apprehend tlieir doctrine on the subject of 
univenals, would have enabled them to get rid, altogether of the 
theory that ideasof any kind, were other than mere names, notions f 
perceptions, or conceptions of the mind, for it must be evident, that 
as they had reduced universals to that state, there could be no rea- 
son why they should continue the doctrine with individuals, when 
they were equally explainable by the same theory. They certainly 
came so close to the true theory of ideas, that I apprehend they are 
fairly entitled to the credit of overturning the ancient doctrine, though 
this great improvement is especially ascribed to Des Cartes, How- 
ever this may be, our present theory on the subject, is nevertheless 
a direct and legitimate deduction from the doctrine of the Nomi- 
nalists. 

I have just observed that the Nominalists were not permitted to 
develope their theory concerning ideas and essences. This arose 
from the fact that the church of Rome essentially maintained a 
scheme of realism, a compound of Christianity and Peripatetics; and 
as such the anathemas of the church were ever ready to fall upon the 
head of any Nominalist that ventured to discuss any subject beyond 
points of mere logical disputation. The Realists could ever bring 
the Nominalists into the utmost peril by showing that their theory 
directly tended to oppose the doctrines of the church, nearly on 
all subjects whether of ethics or theology. For it must be evident 
that if there were no universal ideas and eternal essences, what 
would become of virtue, goodness, justice, &c., which not only were 
universals, but also seemed to be real essences. Therefore the Realists 
continually charged the Nominalists with advocating impiety and 
irreligion, by making vice virtue, justice and injustice to be but 
names of things, and not matters of immutable essence. To thest? 
were added other matters, which, at that time, involved a more se- 
rious imputation; such as effecting the doctrine of the trinity, tran- 
substantiation, supererogation of good works, &:c. 

The Nominalists from these causes were both linuted in their ar- 
guments and exceedingly hard pressed, for at the same time that 
they vindicated their logical theory, they had to establish their or- 
thodoxy as to the doctrines of the Romish church, which was, in 
fact, an impossible undertaking, and hence, from time to time, they 
passed the prescribed bounds, and incurred excommunication from 
the church, the horror of the superstitious, and the persecution of 
U 



82 

kings and magistrates.* But nothwithstaudiiig all these disadvan- 
tages, the Nominalists contended manfully against the Realists, and 
to them is chiefly due the intellectual preparation of Christendom 
for the reception of the doctrines of the reformation by Luther. In 
this great moral event the speculations of the Nominalists were so 
completely merged, that the dispute between them and the Realists 
as a formal matter, terminated, and which has never been renewed 
with any interest since that time. 

But though the dispute concerning "universals" is not formally 
discussed at present, yet it is a subject upon which men are neither 
neutral nor indifferent, it is of the same nature in philosophy and re- 
ligion that the dispute of the Calvinists and Arminians is as to the 
mode of our salvation. No one can read the Scriptures with any 
belief of their inspiration, but who becomes either Calvinistic or 
Arminian, though he had never heard of such terms, and never had 
heard an argument on the merits of the controversy. So, in like 
manner, every reflecting man is either a Nominalist or a Realist, 
though he may be entirely unaware of what is the distinction between 
the two sects. 

Though I cannot enlarge upon this subject at the present time, 
the reader will very soon see the proof of this observation in our 
speculation on moral distinctions. It will then be seen that this 
view of universal or abstract ideas is not a matter of mere meta- 
physical curiosity, but it will be fouud to have a prodigious applica- 
tion to every branch of speculative science. Wherever a question 
is to be discussed concerning the truth, the value, the duration, the 
extent of any subject, it is imperatively necessary that we correct- 
ly determine whether the truth is absolute or relative, whether the 
value is infinite or nominal, whether the duration is eternal or limit- 
ed, whether the extent is boundless or circumscribed. Now where 
any one asserts an absolute state, he is a Realist; and where any one as- 
serts a relative state he is a Nominalist; and a thorough understand- 
ing of this subject in its philosophical bearing upon all questions per- 
taining to logic, metaphysics, ethics, and theology is absolutely ne- 
cessary. The doctrine of the one will inevitably lead us into super- 
stition, error, or presumption, while the other will enable us, not 
wholly indeed, but in a great degree to extricate ourselves from the 
influences of error and prejudice, and to appreciate our true condi- 
tion as beings of limited powers and capacities. 

*The Nominalists never shone forth with brilliancy, but their champions fell 
under the censures of the Church. Witness Berenger, Roscelinus, Abelard, 
Occam, &c. 



83 

With this subject as involved in a general discussion of the prin- 
ciples of logic or metaphysics, we have no concern in the present 
essay. The matter of interest now before us is, to determine the 
true nature of moral distinctions, upon which subject it is impossi- 
ble we can take sides but as Nominalists or Realists, and which 
terms of distinction, from reasons already assigned, I shall constant- 
ly employ in prosecuting the discussion of the ensuing pages. 

In commencing our discourse on the subject of the immutability 
of moral distinctions, it must be premised that such a doctrine does 
not pertain exclusively either to those who profess Christianity, or 
to those who are of an opposite belief. Individuals of either opinion 
may hold indifferently the same views, whether for or against such 
a doctrine. The perplexity of this subject is, therefore, enormous 
by its many heterogeneous combinations, and is so deeply involved 
in all our speculations, that a systematic enunciation of the subject 
is of indispensable importance. 

By the universal consent of mankind, in every age, and with very 
immaterial discrepancies as to particulars, certain actions are term- 
ed virtuous, right or moral, and others vicious, wrong, immoral; and 
90 strictly defined are these various distinctions, that it is a doctrine 
universally received, that no possible change of circumstances in 
human society can make what is now called virtuous to become vi- 
cious, or vice versa; and thus far 1 admit the doctrine to be just and 
true. 

But unfortunately for theology, this doctrine of the immutability 
of moral distinctions, which alone pertains to human obligations, has 
been extended to an immutability of their nature or essence, which 
carries the subject far beyond the sphere of human nature and doc- 
trines the most pernicious, have been deduced from such an extension 
in every past age of the world. 

Certain actions beneficial to human society, however differing in 
degree, are classed together as being virtuous. But from whence 
are they virtuous? Because they possess the common character of 
virtue? What then is virtue? The more general reply would be, that 
virtuous acts are right and vicious ones wrong. The foundation, there- 
fore, of virtue and morality, or of vice and immorality, rests upon the 
theory of what constitutes right and wrong. 

It would be but treading in a circle to inquire further on this sub- 
ject; for we should be ultimately informed, that whatever promotes 
the welfare and happiness of mankind, is right and virtuous, and 
whatever obstructs or opposes that welfare is vicious and wrong. 
But inlaying such a foundation as this, for the principles of right 



84 

and wrong, it is evident that we judge of the sui)ject as being men, 
and attempt to test the truth or the falsehood of a most extensive theory' 
of principles, by the fact of their promoting or injuring the happi- 
ness of mankind. All this may be true relatively to human society, 
but what authority have we to extend our notions of moral distinc- 
tion, out of the bounds of human nature, so that the motives or pro- 
ceedings of any other intellectual being arc to be determined by 
rules that have arisen out of the peculiarities of our particular moral 
condition. 

Suppose there are other intelligent beings besides mankind, and 
with a constitution entirely different from that of ours. Will our 
views of moral distinction be applicable to them? I apprehend not. 
The primary condition of human nature is, that we must sustain 
our lives by our labor, and a careful providence of things necessary 
to our future subsistence. Through this necessity of our constitu- 
tion, arises all our ideas of peculiar property and individual rights. 
But such a state of things is not necessary, it is merely contingent to 
our present existence, for the Creator could easily have placed us in 
a world that required neither clothing, nor house to shelter us, and, 
could have sustained us by a spontaneous production of meats and 
drinks, in any conceivable abundance. Under such a condition of 
things as thus supposed, what an immense number of offences against 
morality would have been altogether unknown, that abound under 
our present constitution. All fraud, rapine, and those countless 
crimes that proceed from the desire to acquire temporal possessions, 
and the influence depending on such appendages, would be altogether 
incomprehensible; and in like manner, all the virtues would be un- 
known, that we now recognize as the contraries to the preceding 
immoralities. 

The human race, like the majority of animals on the surface of 
the globe, is perpetuated by a congress of the different sexes, yet, 
such a condition of things is not necessary, as the exceptions to the 
rule, sufficiently testify. Our Creator could have made us all of 
one sex or kind, and impelled us to the production of beings like 
ourselves, by the gratification of the act, though solitary. Had this 
been our condition of being, what an amount of offences against mor- 
ality, would have been unknown, such as incest, adultery, rape, se- 
duction, and the various other crimes which licentious indulgences 
have occasioned. And in like manner, all the virtues corresponding to 
such vices, would have been both unknown and incomprehensible. 
It is unnecessary to go into any further details on this subject, for 
ii mi^ist be evident that under a condition of circumstances as above 



85 
suggested, man could have been placed by his Creator, to undergo 
probation and discipUne upon any scheme of obedience to divine 
law, consistent with the nature God might see fit to assign him, and 
the result would be as complete as it may be under our present ex- 
istence. And in truth, the trial of our first parents in Paradise, in- 
volved no principle of morality whatever, it was simply on a point 
of obedience to a law enjoined on them. 

We also have this matter further exhibited to us in the theory of 
angelic or spiritual existences. They, as being without corporeal 
natures in that circumstance, annihilate every distinction of morality, 
so far as is implicated by our being in that peculiarity of condition. 

It must, therefore, be a perfectly intelligible conclusion, that what 
would be moral and virtuous in beings of our constitution, would be 
entirely unknown and unintelligible to others of a different constitu- 
tion. Morality, therefore, or our determination as to what is right 
or wrong in human actions, does not depend upon any eternal im- 
mutable principle of excellency in itself, as far as we can discern, 
but upon the peculiarities of our present constitution. It is, there- 
fore, merely relative to that constitution, and has no other existence. 

But if any one should contend that there must be, nevertheless, in 
every constitution of intelligent beings, different states of right and 
wrong, of justice and injustice, he is misled by these terms thus 
improperly used as «m?5ersa/s. For justice and injustice, right and 
wrong, as applied to other beings than ourselves, have none of those 
peculiar characters that belong to human conceptions on such mat- 
ters. In such a case, they are paralogisms that have no other sig- 
nificance than as expressing something suitable or unsuitable, con- 
sistent or inconsistent, proper or improper, to that condition of being. 
Now that there may be a propriety or impropriety, a suitableness 
or unsuitableness, to any state of social existence, there may be no 
dispute, and thus far, the one may be termed right, and the other 
wrong. But the right and the wrong are simple relatives to that 
condition, and have no immutable or eternal character of distinction, 
for they vary with every condition of being. Unless human welfare 
be the universal standard by which all principles of right and wrong 
are to be tried, it must follow conclusively, that our notions on such 
principles are merely relative or nominal^ and that it is altogether 
unjustifiable to assign them any vniversal or real existence. 

But, in our previous discourse, we have alone regarded right and 
wrong, justice or injustice, and all otlier synonymous terms, as dis- 
tinguishing the moral actions of individual beings, who partake of 
one common nature and constitution, and where nil have similar dv- 



H6 

sires, hopes, and aversions. The principles that must determine 
the moral or immoral acts of such beings, among themselves, are 
very easy to ascertain, for every one, knowing what is agreeable or 
disagreeable to himself, can determine without any liability to error 
what is agreeable or disagreeable to others like himself, and hence 
under such a constitution, the universal sense of such a community, 
will call certain actions right and others wrong. 

But the principles of right and wrong, when considered in their 
supposed universal significance, involve other principles than the mere 
regulation of the moral acts of individuals, of one common constitu- 
tion. How are we to decide upon the rectitude of acts, that may occur 
in the intercommunication or subjection of one class of beings, to 
another class of beings, of a higher intellectual and moral constitu- 
tion. In what manner shall we determine, how the conduct or pro- 
ceeding of the one to the other, is to be regulated. Was there a 
race of intelligent beings, superior to mankind, placed over us, to 
whom we were more or less subjected, I apprehend we should im- 
mediately find a difficulty in recognizing the immutable and eternal 
excellence of those principles of right and wrong, that made human 
welfare but a subordinate matter, to the welfare and happiness of 
those who were superior to us, in their intellectual or moral consti- 
tution. And yet, such is the very theory by which we, who are at 
the head of the creation, in this lower world, have magnified our no- 
tions of morality, into eternal and immutable essences. To show 
the entire absurdity and inconsistency of our theories, upon right 
and wrong, considered in any other light than as merely regulating 
the conduct of one man to another man, I shall proceed with an ex- 
hibition, that effectually destroys the whole theory of the immutable 
and eternal essence of right and wrong, as advanced by the theory 
of the Realists. 

According to every human system of morality, it will be found that 
the obligations of justice and morality, are partial requirements, that 
men bestow and require from men, but which they disregard by uni- 
versal consent, in all our proceedings with the brute creation. We 
enslave the animals for our domestic uses, we plunder their stores, 
we slaughter them for food, without the least compunction. Nay, it 
is considered an innocent gratification, by the great majority of 
mankind, to recreate themselves with a day's sport, as it is called, in 
fishing, or shooting, the pleasure ofwhich consists in depriving other 
animals of life, under all the aggravations of terror and pain. 

Man is forbidden, by human morals, to kill man; man is forbid- 
den, by morality, to rob man. By what principle of immutable 
right or morality, is man justified to kill and rob the animals. 



87 

If a man kills a horse, or an ox, he transgresses, by our moral in- 
stitutions, only against the human owner, not agamst the animal. 
If a thief steals and destroys a bee-hive, there is no morality viola- 
ted towards the bees, but against their human owner. And if the 
horse, the ox, or the bees, are at large, without a human owner, our 
morality permits us to captivate, or to destroy them, in all their en- 
joyment of life, and health, though this be done, only to procure 
their skins, or their horns, or perhaps for mere sport. 

If there be any immutable principles of justice, or of right, or 
wrong, how can its notorious breach to every other animal, be justi- 
fied with such a principle. I may be told that the beasts were made 
for the use and convenience of mankind. I will, in reply, ask the 
deistical Realist, by what induction of reason and justice, he can es- 
tablish that assertion, and I will ask the Christian Realist, how he 
can justify the immutable excellency of God, for having made them 
for such purposes. Would it not have been more just, as well 
as more merciful in God, to have made man a frugivorous or 
herbivorous animal? But not to embarass our present discussion, 
with this subject, let me return to the assertion, the deistical Real- 
ist may make, that the animals were made for the use of mankind — 
I ask for the semblance of proof on this subject. That the animals 
are very convenient and serviceable to human requirements, and 
that we could not be so comfortable without them, may be very 
true, but is that an argument, that they were made to be thus used? 
It is very convenient and agreeable, for a man to have other men to 
serve him and administer to his pleasures, or to his necessities, but 
would this justify the powerful and the strong to capture and enslave 
other men, that they might be used for their service. By what 
right, then, can any one so treat the beasts? Is it any justification 
to say they are without reason or understanding. Would that justify 
the wise and learned, to enslave any ignorant or stupid man. Will 
such a theory justify the angels, if they had the power to restrain 
and use man for the promotion of their comfort or happiness. 

Our observation on the subject of the injustice with which man- 
kind treat the animals, is not obviated by the fact of any one ab- 
staining from the glaring cruelty of field sports, nor from the use of 
animal food, which some persons have attempted to urge upon moral 
considerations. The objection applies, with all its force, to the 
subjection and restraint of ourdomestic animals, though they may be 
only employed for purposes of agriculture or draught. In all such 
instances, however comparatively innocent they may appear, there 
is an unjust and violent intrusion upon the liberty and enjoyments of 



88 

the animals, and a debarring them from those gratifications, most suit- 
able to their nature, which they continually seek through unerring 
instincts, and which we can only overcome, in many instances, by 
cruel mutilations. 

It is ridiculous to urge that however this may be, that neverthe- 
less the domestic animals actually enjoy a greater amount of comfort 
and happiness, through the care of man, than if they had been 
left in their wild state. Suppose this to be the fact, it concerns 
not an argument on justice, the welfare and comfort of the domestic 
animals is a mere contingent to our employment of them, and is 
neither dictated by humanity or justice. Fortunately for them, it is 
essential to the advantage of man, whose benevolence to his beast, 
is alone exercised either in fattening them for ihe table, or of keeping 
them in high working condition. As such, they are sustained for 
unceasing toil and servitude, only mitigated by that benevolent appoint- 
ment of the God of the Scriptures, who has required all his servants 
to afford them the rest of the Sabbath, and which, through the influ- 
ences of the Christian religion, has prevailed throughout Christen- 
dom, even over those who profess atheism and deism. 

It is, therefore, impossible to justify our proceeding with the beasts, 
if the theory of the immutability of moral distinctions be correct. 
For it must be evident, we conduct ourselves by one set of princi- 
ples in our transactions with mankind, and we have another set 
altogether different and opposite, which regulates our conduct to- 
wards the beasts. 

This view, therefore, is sufficient evidence, that we have no uni- 
versal system of immutable moral distinctions, nor is such a scheme 
discernable by our faculties any where in the moral government of 
God, for the fact that he has permitted and authorized men to en- 
slave and eat the animals, though it is sufficient justification to us, 
thus to use them, yet that permission and its consequences, it is im- 
possible to reconcile with any ideas we can have of the immutable 
moral excellence of the divine being. 

This argument we have already used in a former chapter, as im- 
pugning the ascription of excellent attributes to the Creator, from 
any inspection of his works, and as thus totally destroying the theory 
of Natural Religion. I therefore need not say any thing further on 
the subject at present. 

The reader must not suppose that I am so fantastic as to object to 
the employment of the beasts for our useful purposes, or for being 
used as food. This privilege we possess by the direct permission of 
the God that made them, if the Scriptures be a revelation from God. 



89 
I have been alone contending that the use of the animals, irrespect- 
ive of ths knowii permis:5ion of the Creator, is in direct opposition 
to every notion that men have proclaimed, concerning the immuta- 
ble essence of right and wrong, and may very rationally lead us to 
suspect that the absolute essence of these principles depends alone 
upon the unfathomable will of the Creator, and is, therefore, a subject 
wholly incomprehensible to human nature. But however this may 
be, we have, I apprehend, reduced the systematic doctrine of the 
Realists upon this subject, from its imaginary universality into the 
limited scheme of mere human v.elfare or philanthropy.* 

However clear our preceding argument seems to have represented 
this subject, T apprehend there may still exist a source of embarrass- 
ment to some persons from a perverse misapplication of the Scrip- 
ture, which always speaks of God as being infinite in his perfec- 
tions, and thus necessarily embodying in that perfection every moral 
attribute. Hence the Realist affirms that as God is the perfection 
of every moral excellence, therefore the very essence of right, jus- 
tice, and morality, is co-existent with his immutable essence, and that, 
therefore, these essences or principles must have real and eternal 
existence. 

But such an assertion as this should occasion no difficulty; for it 
is an absolute sophism which depends upon the fallacy of making a 
universal idea of the terms right, justice, morality, and which uni- 
versality we totally deny. That Jehovah is a being of infinite and 
immutable excellent perfections, and who is absolutely right and just 
in all his proceeding, I receive as the prime article of our religions 
faith. But at the same time, 1 deny utterly that we can compre- 
hend the nature of these attributes as belonging to him, or make 
the least comparison between them and any notion that we can have 
on the subject of our moral distinctions. And not only is it abhor- 
rent to reason itself, to suppose that our imperfect notions can be 
put into any comparison with those of the Deity, but God himself 
has said, (Isaiah Iv. 9,) "As the heavens are higher than the 
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than 
your thoughts.'' 

It is, therefore, absurd that the Christian Realist should require 
of us, that because we acknowledge God to be absolutely good, and 

*In speaking of philanthropy, I mention it as a matter of speculative, not 
practical ethics; for it is little regarded by men any where in this last applica- 
tion. Thus we, in Maryland and other slaveholding states, recognize phi- 
lanthropy only as applicable to men with white complexions. Negroes and 
mulattos are classed with horses, dogs, or oxen, and with whom they are daily 
bought and sold. 
12 



90 

infinitely perfect, as a matter of faith, that we should, therefore, ad- 
mit that their view of moral distinctions, as illustrated by the ten- 
dencies of human actions, shall be considered as being characterized 
by the immutability of God's divine perfection. 

That God will do right, in all things, we firmly believe; but what 
principle is it that constitutes the rectitude of an act of the Deity? 
Certainly upon this subject we can have no opinion, for it is wholly 
bey nd our comprehension. 

God, in speaking to us through the Scriptures, asserts himself to 
be possessed of all perfection of attributes, and specially names jus- 
tice, holiness, goodness, mercy, truth, &c. And these, as being the 
highest moral notions to which we can attain, are rightly addressed 
to our comprehension. But the use of these terms no more implies 
that the Deity uses the restricted human meaning of the words in 
an absolute sense, any more than his speaking of his eyes, his ears, 
his hands, &c., implies that he possesses a corporeal nature. 

God, in addressing himself to us, does not speak of himself ab- 
solutely, but alone communicates to us by a language we can com- 
prehend, for in his absolute nature he must ever be incomprehensi- 
ble to a finite creature. If he has promised us any good, or if he 
has threatened us with any punishment, we may not doubt that he 
will do what he has said; for it is incredible that a being of infinite 
perfection will say any thing and not do it. His infinite perfection is 
our only, but sufficient, guarantee, at least such is the only doctrine 
we are authorized to take from Scripture. The revelations of God 
to man are confined to announcing a moral law, and with the an- 
nunciation, that he will reward or punish mankind according as they 
obey or disregard his commandments. Concerning his nature, his 
attributes, his final purposes with man, or with any other of his 
creatures, he has not communicated to us any information whatever. 

In this absolute state of ignorance, therefore, we cannot pretend, 
even in the smallest degree, to identify any of our notions concern- 
ing right and wrong with the unknown but perfect nature of God, 
and the absurdity of even supposing it practicable, can be easily ex- 
hibited. For instance, if the moral condition of man in this life, so 
much impeaches the perfection of the divine attributes, as to re- 
quire for their vindication the compensation of another life, in what 
manner shall God compensate the beasts for the pains and sufferings 
of their life? They are irrational, cannot sin, and are, therefore, all 
in one moral condition. Then in a future life, if there be such, they 
must all be rendered, though irrational, happy, to compensate them 
for what they suflered in this. But, then, why were they made sub- 



91 

ject to pain and unhappiness in this world, when their condition here- 
after is susceptible but of a single state of existence, to wit, a hap- 
py one, and that altogether unaffected by what they may have suf- 
fered in the present life, since they are irrational? 

Now let the Realist compute, in his imagination, the innumerable 
myriads upon myriads of irrational animals that have ever existed; 
let him consider, that nearly all these animals live by destroying one 
another, and besides, are all liable to suffer from accident, privations, 
and disease. Let him consider this enormous amount of suffering 
connected with their existence, and then let him, if he can, justify 
the fact with the notion that God possesses the attributes of mercy, be- 
nevolence, or justice. If he cannot do this, how utterly absurd to 
insist that our notions of right and justice are eternal essences or 
principles that are involved in the immutability of God. 

Where then is the boasted immutability of Moral Distinctions, so 
much extolled by the Realists? I have never been able to discern 
any systematic view of the subject, even in all the advantage that 
mere theory affords it, that did not restrict its doctrines alone to the 
welfare of human society, and, therefore, cannot but consider it most 
absurd to apply any such partial, selfish scheme to judge of the ac- 
tions and purposes of God, who is, to us, so infinitely superior and 
incomprehensible. 

All that moralists have ever written upon the subject of moral ob- 
ligations, extends to no system more universal than is embraced by 
the word Philanthropy. Virtue and morality, justice, right, 6zc., 
are mere synonymes with philanthropy, and it is impossible for us to 
give them any other universality. 

As God is God to angels and beasts as well as to man, the appli- 
cation of moral attributes to him must be determined by the imiver- 
sal scheme of all his creations. We must look at the stars of heaven 
in all their countless myriads, glittering throughout illimitable space, 
and estimate God's purposes by the laws that regulate them all, and 
not by mere philanthropy^ to which our morality is exclusively re- 
stricted, and which, in its greatest amount of application, bears not 
a comparison to the immensity of God's creations, that an ant-hill 
does to our terraqueous globe. 

As it, therefore, is utterly impossible for us, in this mannor, to ap- 
preciate the moral proceeding or acts of Deity, our only rational 
course must be to treat the subject with reverence, and confine our- 
selves to those matters that we can comprehend. Nothing can be 
more preposterously absurd than that men, knowing nothing of tlio 
final purposes of his Creator, should presume to deride upon the 



92 

morality of any asserted act of God while in transitu, and whose 
proceeding may possibly require the accumulation of thousands of 
centuries to bring it to its proposed consummation. 

As it may be possible for some malignant realist to assert, or that 
a hasty reader not aware of the real merits of this discussion, to fall 
into the mistake of considering that J hold the distinction between 
human vices and human virtues to be mere nominal, and not actual 
matters of distinction, 1 must distinctly express my abhorrence to 
any such doctrine before I leave this subject. 

Man has been made by his Creator, a social being, and as such, 
he stands indissolubly connected with his fellow creatures in the re- 
lative positions of son, brother, father, husband, neighbor, citizen, 
and fellow creature. Under all these relations, he has certain duties 
to perform, and according as he executes them with benevolence and 
justice, so he is a virtuous or good son, brother, father, husband, &c. 

Now the discharge of these relative duties, depends not upon any 
uncertain or indifferent system of principles, but upon principles 
whose beneficial influence upon human society cannot be misrepre- 
sented, and which the general consent of mankind have always de- 
termined to be useful, i. e. good and excellent, or to be hurtful, i. e. evil 
and pernicious, and that they are so, is evident, from the fact, that 
happiness whether to oneself or mankind, is connected with the ex- 
ercise of virtue, and unhappiness, whether to oneself or mankind, is 
connected with vicious habits or principles. And these things, so 
far as they are connected with human nature, are fixed immutably, 
and never can be changed or confounded. 

The standard of moral obligation for human duties is clear ; what- 
ever increases the w^elfare of men is right, and the contrary wrong, 
and upon this point there can be no amibiguity.* 

As to applying any such standard, to judge of the proceedings of 
God, we have argued against it with all our might, and contend, 
that it is the very height of ignorance and presumption. 

Every attempt to estimate the morality of God's act, by what are 
called the immutability of moral distinctions, has never failed in a 
single instance, to end in error, folly, and mischief. 

* The Christian can never be perplexed, even in the smallest degree on this 
subject. Our Saviour himself has given the rule (Math. vii. 12.) 

" Therefore ail thino:s whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets." 

Christ does not refer ns to any eternal or absolute principles of right or 
wrong, but to the simple peculiarities of our moral and physical constitution, 
by which we can always, without the least difficulty, ascertain our obligations 
of duty. 



93 

We have now analyzed the theory of Moral Distinctions, and 
after a sufficient examination, have ascertained its true value, which 
is, that all our notions on this subject have no other value than as 
being involved in the peculiarities of human nature. In this connec- 
tion they have indeed an immutable character and cannot be other- 
wise as long as human nature continues the same. Out of the sphere 
of human nature, they have no existence, and therefore it is most 
absurd that we should attempt to apply them to estimate any asserted 
proceeding of Deity. 

We have now determined the value of three of those tests, which, 
in our introduction, were stated to be of essential importance in 
appreciating the truth or falsehood of the Scripture writings. By 
the principles thus ascertained, we shall be enabled to fully estimate 
the value of all of those metaphysical objections, that the deists have 
so liberally used in scrutinizing the divine operations implicated in 
the histories of the Old or New Testaments. Eut before I pro- 
ceed with any application of these principles of truth, and to prevent 
any future cavil, I must show that we have the authority of the most 
intellectual of the deistical writers on our side, as affirming the truth 
of the very propositions which we have hitherto been at so much 
pains to establish. 

In making the following extract from the writings of Hume, I do not 
simply introduce it as the opinion of an eminent philosopher, which, 
though it may answer a present purpose, yet, that I do not receive it 
myself as being correct. On the contrary, I hold the argument to be 
admirable, and the deduction to be irrefutable, and I acknowledge I 
have been greatly enabled to speculate rightly on all religious theory 
by a close attention to its leading principles. Therefore, in its intro- 
duction at the present page, as far as it can be said, I avouch the 
same to be my own view and doctrine. 

Extracts from Humc^s Essay on Providence and Future State, where 
he speaks in the character of Epicurus: 

"When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must pro- 
portion the one to the other, and never can be allowed to ascribe to 
the cause, any qualities but what are exactly sufficient to produce 
the effect. A body of ten ounces raised in any scale may serve as 
a proof that the counterbalancing Vv'eight exceeds ten ounces, but 
can never afford a reason that it exceeds a hundred. 

"The same rule holds whether the cause assigned be brute, uncon- 
scious matter, or a rational, intelligent being. If the cause be known 
only by the effect, we never ought to ascribe to it any qualities be- 



94 

yond what are precisely requisite to produce the effect; nor can we, 
by any rules of just reasoning, return back from the cause, and infer 
other effects from it beyond those by which alone it is known to us. 
No one, merely from the sight of one of Zeuxis's pictures, could know 
that he was also a statuary or architect, and was an artist no less 
skilful in stone and marble, than in colors. The talents and taste 
displayed in the particular work before us, these we can safely con- 
clude, the workman to be possessed of. The cause must be propor- 
tioned to the effect, and if we exactly and precisely proportion it, we 
shall never find in it any qualities that point farther or afford an 
inference concerning any other design or performance. 

"Allowing, therefore, the gods to be the authors of the existence, 
or order of the universe, it follows that they possess that precise de- 
gree of power, intelligence, and benevolence, which appears in their 
workmanship, but nothing farther can ever be proved, except we 
call in the assistance of exaggeration and flattery, to supply the de- 
fects of argument and reasoning. So far as the traces of any attri- 
butes at present appear, so far may we conclude these attributes to 
exist. The supposition of further attributes is mere hypothesis; 
much more the supposition, that in distant regions of space, or 
periods of time, there has been or will be a more magnificent dis- 
play of those attributes, and a scheme of administration more suita- 
ble to such imaginary virtues. 

"You find certain phenomena in nature, you seek a cause or 
author. You imagine that you have found him. You afterwards 
become so enamored of this offspring of your brain, that you 
imagine it impossible but he must produce something greater and 
more perfect than the present scene of things which is so full of ill 
and disorder. You forget that this superlative intelligence and be- 
nevolence are entirely imaginary, or, at least, without any founda- 
tion in reason, and that you have no ground to ascribe to him any 
qualities but what you see he has actually exerted and displayed in 
his productions. Let your gods, therefore, O philosophers, be suit- 
ed to the present appearances of nature. And presume not to alter 
these appearances by arbitrary suppositions, in order to suit them to 
the attributes which you so fondly ascribe to your deities. 

"That the divinity may possibly be endowed with attributes which 
we have never seen exerted, may be governed by principles of ac- 
tion which we cannot discover to be satisfied: — all this will be 
freely allowed. But still it is mere possibility and hypothesis. We 
never can have reason to infer any attributes or any principles of 
action in him, but so far as we know them to have been exerted 
and satisfied. 



95 

"In works o( human art and contrivance it is allowable to advance 
from the effect to the cause, and returning back from the cause to 
form new inferences concerning the effect, and examine the altera- 
tions which it has probably undergone or may still undergo. But 
what is the foundation of this method of reasoning? plainly this: 
that man is a being whom we know by experience, whose motives 
and designs we are acquainted with, and whose projects and inclina- 
tions have a certain connexion, and coherence according to the laws 
which nature has established for the government of such a creature. 
When, therefore, we find that any work has proceeded from the 
skill and industry of man, as we are otherwise acquainted with the 
nature of the animal, we can draw a hundred inferences concerning 
what may be expected from him, and these inferences will all be 
founded in experience and observation. But did we know man only 
from the single work or production which we examine, it were im- 
possible for us to argue in this manner, because our knowledge of 
all the qualities which we ascribe to him, being in that case derived 
from the single production, it is impossible they could point to any 
thing further or be the foundation of any new inferences. The print 
of a single foot in the sand can only prove, when considered alone, 
that there was some figure adapted to it by which it was produced. 
But the print of a human foot proves, likewise, from our other expe- 
rience, that there was probably another foot, which also left its im- 
pression, though effaced by time or other accidents. We compre- 
hend in this case, a hundred other experiences and observations con- 
cerning the usual figure and members of that species of animal, 
without which, this method of argument must be considered as 
fallacious and sophistical. 

"The case is not the same with our reasonings from the works of 
nature. The Deity is known to us only by his productions, and is a 
single being in the universe, not comprehended under any species or 
genus from whose experienced attributes or qualities we can, by 
analogy, infer any attribute or quality in him. As the universe shows 
wisdom and goodness, we infer wisdom and goodness. As it 
shows a particular degree of these perfections, we infer a particular 
degree of them precisely adapted to the effect which we examine. 
But farther attributes or farther degrees of the same attributes we 
can never be authorized to infer or suppose by any rules of just rea- 
soning. 

"The great source of our mistake in this subject, and of the un- 
bounded license of conjecture which we indulge, is, that we tacitly 
consider ourselves as in the place of the Supreme Being, and con- 



96 

cluJe that he will, on every occasion, observe the same conduct 
v/hich we ourselves, in his situation, would have embraced as reasona- 
ble and eligible. But besides that the ordinary course of nature 
may convince us that almost every thing is regulated by principles 
and maxims very different from ours; besides this, I say, it must evi- 
dently appear contrary to all rules of analogy to reason from the 
intentions and projects of man, to those of a being so different, and 
so much superior. In human nature there is a certain experienced 
coherence of designs and inclinations; so that, when from any fact 
we have discovered one intention of any man, it may often be rea- 
sonable from experience, to infer another, and draw a long chain of 
conclusions concerning his past or future conduct. But this method 
of reasoning can never have place with regard to a being so remote, 
and incomprehensible, who bears much less analogy to any other 
being in the universe than the sun to a waxen taper, and who dis- 
covers himself only by some faint traces or outlines, beyond which 
we have no authority to ascribe to him any attribute or perfection." 

Though 1 care not about multiplying authorities, yet 1 think it 
not amiss to introduce the following brief justification of our argu- 
ment, also, from a distinguished deistical writer: 

"We are made able to arrive, by a proper exercise of our mental 
faculties, from a knowledge of God's works to a knowledge of his 
existence, and of that infinite power and wisdom (intelligence) which 
are demonstrated to us in them. Our knowledge concerning God 
goes no further. We are in absolute ignorance of the real essence 
and inward constitution of every sensible object. How much less 
reason is there to expect any knowledge of the manner of being, 
and of the nature aud essence of the invisible God, or of his physi- 
cal and moral attributes, beyond what his works, the effects of his 
nature and attributes, communicate to us. This degree, this suffi- 
cient degree of knowledge, concerning God, is a fixed point, on one 
side of which lies atheism, and metaphysical and theological blas- 
phemy too often on the other." — Lord Bolingbroke, iv. 87, 88. 

It would be useless to introduce the authority of any other rea- 
soners upon this subject, for the extreme clearness with which Hume 
has limited the inductions of our reason upon the nature and attri- 
butes of God, seem to render any further exposition entirely super- 
fluous. Nor can I comprehend how any reasonable man can disa- 
gree with Hume on this particular subject, nor how he can object 
to the conclusion, that the only attributes that we can admit the 
Deity to possess, distinguished from whatever he may have revealed 
of himself by oral communication, are those that we perceive our- 
selves, t J wit: INFINITE INTELLIGENCE AND POWER. 



97 

And if this be all that we can learn of God by an examination of 
his works, neither Natural Theology or Natural Religion can sup- 
ply us with the least argument whatever, by which we can judge of 
the truth or falsehood of the Christian Religion. 

This being undeniably the case, we can but wonder in astonish- 
ment at Hume and Bolingbroke, who, after having exhibited the 
absolute nothingness of the inferences of Natural Theology, have 
nevertheless condemned Christianity by principles alone derived 
from the assumptions of Natural Theology, or by an appeal to sys- 
tems of morality, built alone upon the limited basis of human expe- 
diencies. 

Am I in any error on this subject? Where has Hume or Lord 
Bolingbroke judged of Christianity according to its own theory of evi- 
dence. All of Hume's Essays, with the exception of the one on Mira- 
cles, instead of being any argument against Christianity, are alone 
against the Theory of Natural Theology or of Natural Religion, and 
have no other application. But what has Christianity to do with any 
theory of Natural Theology or Natural Religion? Do the Scrip- 
tares say that our religion arose, or is to be substantiated by any ex- 
amination of natural things? Does the Bible ever teach us to infer 
the nature of God and his attributes from an inspection of nature? 
Not in a single passage of the Scriptures is such a view advanced. 

But most distinctly is it stated in the Scriptures, from first to last, 
that God spoke to man; God manifested divine presence to man; 
and God revealed expressly to man what man should believe, and 
what he should do. Then to judge of the truth or falsehood of the 
religious system advocated in the Scriptures, by the nonentity of 
Natural Theology, is supremely absurd. The doctrines of the Scrip- 
tures are stated to have been communicated directly from God or 
angel to man, and we of the present day, have received them through 
the agency and instrumentality of men. The ground of our belief 
then in truth of the Scriptures, rests alone upon the veracity of the 
individuals who have written and handed them down to our times. 
The only means, therefore, by which we can ascertain whether the 
Christian Religion be of divine appointment or not, is, by ascertain- 
ing the credibility of the biblical writers; and this must be ascer- 
tained by the application of those means or principles by which we 
ascertain the credibility of other men, when it is important to deter- 
mine how far their testimony can be received. 

Now did Hume or Lord Bolingbroke examine the Scripture upon 
the plan 1 have suggested? indeed I might ask, who has hitherto 
rigidly done so? The deists have omitted this from various consid- 
13 



98 

erations, the chief of which, is, that they never have studied the bib- 
lical writings. The Christian writers, deceived by their notions 
of Natural Theology, have wandered away from the real merits of 
the case, and would have been alarmed perhaps, to have even heard 
it suggested, that the entire truth or falsehood of Christianity depend- 
ed alone upon human testimony; yet, such is certainly the fact; we 
have no other authority for our belief, than the credibility which we 
concede to the biblical writers. 

But as I am more solicitous at the present moment to show the 
mistakes of the deists than of Christians, let me exhibit the proof of 
their enormous errors under that system of assumed principles whose 
utter want of all rational foundation, we have been at so much pains 
to exhibit in our preceding expositions. 

Lord Bolingbroke, as the conclusion of his research upon the au- 
thority of Christianity, observes: [Lord Bolingbroke' s Works, v. 600.) 
"The God of Moses is partial, unjust, and cruel, delights in blood, 
commands assassinations, massacres, and even exterminations of 
people, &c. The God of St. Paul elects some of his creatures to 
salvation, and predestinates others to damnation, even in the wombs 
of their mothers, &c.* If there was not a being infinitely more per- 
fect t^an these, there would be no God at all, nor any true religion 
in the world. But there is most assuredly such a being, and he who 
proposes any system of religion wherein this all-perfect Being is not 
to be found, may say that he is no atheist, but cannot say with truth 
thaf he is a theist." 

We have selected this passage as being the sum of the objections 
that not only Lord Bolingbroke, but which all other deists allege as 
conclusive against the divine authority of the Scriptures. Our re- 
ply to him, therefore, is equivalent to a reply to the ^vhole class. 

Lord Bolingbroke has not offered a single argument to impeach 
the veracity or credibility of the writers of the Scripture, but has 
made his conclusion, and passed his judgment upon the character of 
God, as exhibited in the Scripture, upon views derived from abstract 
notions, formed without any authority, concerning the divine attri- 
butes, a proceeding which he, above all other writers that I have met 
with, has considered to be "impious, blasphemous, and insane." 

It might be sufficient alone to refer, for proof of this most out- 
rageous inconsistency to his view of God's attributes, already extract- 
ed on page 96. But it may answer a good purpose to exhibit 

* By the way, the doctrine of election, fo which Lord Bolingbroke alludes, 
is not a doctrine of the Scripture, though it is of certain theologians. I ap- 
prehend a majority of Christians hold an opinion directly contrary. 



99 

the perversion of all reason and argument which such writers have 
indulged in, against the Scripture in a more palpable manner. We, 
therefore, shall make some further extracts from his writings. 

"To talk positively of the divine attributes and nature, and to de- 
termine on our supposed knowledge of them any thing more than 
we are able to collect from his works, and the proceedings of his (ge- 
neral) providence, is very great presumption, though the common 
practice of (Christian) divines." — Lord Bolingbroke's Works, v. 41. 

"It would pass for downright madness if we were not accustomed 
to it, and if the practice of great and good men did not authorise it 
in common opinion, to hear a creature, (i. e. man,) placed in the 
lowest form of intelligent beings, undertake to penetrate the designs, 
to fathom the depths, and to unveil the mysteries of infinite wisdom, 
which the most exalted of created intelligences would adore in si- 
lence." — Lord Bolingbroke, v. 315. 

It is needless to extract other of the many similar passages in 
this writer's works, thus explicitly condemning the views by which 
he and other deists have condemned Christianity. Nor is it the 
least justification to say, that Lord Bolingbroke,ashedid not believe 
the Scripture, considered the attributes therein ascribed to God, as un- 
warrantable assumptions of the biblical writers, and, therefore, is not 
presumptions nor inconsistent with the views above quoted on that 
subject. I contend that Lord Bolingbroke has no where given us any 
reason whatever to discredit the credibility or authority of the Bible 
writers by any fair investigation, but has condemned their writings 
and Christianity together, for the non-conformity of God's nature 
and attributes, as there exhibited to those which he had conceived 
he should possess. At the same time he has continually asserted, and 
correctly too, that we could form no ideas of those attributes beyond 
power and intelligence, as manifested in his material works. And 
a further proof of his enormous contradiction on this subject is ex- 
pressly furnished by himself, where he admits the existence of moral 
anomalies in God's government. 

Thus, he says, "Every thing shows the wisdom and power of God, 
conformably to our ideas of wisdom and power, in the physical world 
and in the moral. But every thing does not show, in like manner, 
the justice and goodness of God, conformably to our ideas of those 
attributes in either. The theist (deist) acknowledges whatever God 
has done to be just and good in itself, though if does not appear si/ch 
in every instance, conformably to his ideas of justice arid goodness. 
He imputes the difference to the defect of his ideas, and not to any 
defect of the divine attributes," &c. — Lord Bolingbroke, v. 331. 



100 

Yet, notwithstanding the glaring inconsistency between the prin- 
ciples that Lord Bolingbroke lays down for correct reasoning, and 
his manner of determining in defiance of them, how greatly must 
any one be astonished when he reads his views upon evil; for they 
so abundantly exhibit the malicious prejudice that dictated what he has 
said concerning "the God of Moses," &c.,as quoted on page 98, that 
though it is a departure from my original plan of not making any exhi- 
bition of the inconsistency of such writers, I will make two further ex- 
tracts to show how the most intellectual of such writers can believe in 
any thing, provided it is not exhibited under the authority of the Bible, 
though the instances be exactly parallel cases. Thus he says, 

"True it is, that men are sometimes involved in general calami- 
ties which they can neither foresee nor prevent, such as inundations, 
earthquakes, pestilences, and the entire devastations of kingdoms or 
provinces by savage and barbarous people, like the Huns of old, or 
the Spaniards in later ages. But these calamities are rare. Theij 
may be considered as chastisements, for chastisements are reasona- 
ble, ivhen there are any to be amended by partaking them or by being 
at least spectators of them. They may be considered as the mere 
effects, natural, though contingent of matter and motion, in a mate- 
rial system, put into motion under certain general laws. If they are 
seen in the first light, (i. e. of chastisements,) they should teach man- 
kind to adore and to fear that providence which governs the world 
by particular as well as general dispensations. If they are seen 
in the second, (i. e. as mere effects, &;c.,) they should suggest some 
other reflections, which are not without their utility neither." — Lord 
Bolingbroke, v. 403, 404. 

"Cotta,* who exercises greater injustice towards God, than any of 
the tyrants he quotes did towards men, is much scandalized that 
those twoeyes of the Mediterranean coast, Corinth and Carthage, 
were put out, &c. But how did he know that Mummius and Scipio, 
(the Roman generals by whom these cities were destroyed,) were 
not instruments of the justice of Providence, as well as of Roman 
policy and passion. The worst men, and the Romans were none of 
the best, are employed to punish the worst. None so fitted for the 
task. They are the instruments, and in their turns the examples of 
divine justice. The wealth, the splendor, the magnificence of 

*Cotta is the person, in Cicero's treatise on the A'atuie of the Gods, who repre- 
sented the Academics, and who disputed the arguments advanced by the Stoics, 
the Natural Theologians of that day, to prove the providence of the gods of 
Greece and Rome. The extract we made from Cicero's treatise irT page 
68, is the commencement of this very discourse, that has excited Lord 
Bollngbroke's displeasure, as stated in the above extract. 



101 

Corinth were great, but Corinth was a sink of iniquity. Carthage 
was a great and powerful state, but the Carthagenians were a faith- 
less, factious, and cruel people. Might not these be the remote and 
true causes (i. e. for the judgment of God upon them) whatever the 
immediate and apparent were of their destruction." — Lord Boling- 
broke, v. 438. 

Now, since Lord Bolingbroke, thus distinctly, has justified the 
moral punishments of God, in the two preceding instances, surely 
he must be condemned as a most prejudiced and malicious writer, 
when he impugns the inspiration of the Scriptures for an exhibition 
of similar judgments. For it is impossible for cases to be more 
exactly parallel, than those admitted by himself in the facts of the 
two preceding extracts, and those related of the invasion of Canaan 
by the Jews, the extermination of the Amalakites, as well as certain 
other relations of biblical history, to which he, and other deists ob. 
ject, as being utterly derogatory to the infinite perfections of the 
Deity. Now, by what rule of logic, or propriety, can the one be 
condemned and the other justified; and yet, we not only see this 
eminent individual has done this, but the infidel writers of our day, 
continue to do the same thing in glaring violation of all right rules 
of reasoning. The consummation of absurd proceeding is thus 
evinced, according to their own doctrine, which asserts, that we 
cannot perceive what God's attributes are. Then, it is evidently 
impossible for us to say, what is or what is not consistent with his 
real nature and attributes, since they are both unknown and unat- 
tainable to our research. 

But as my undertaking is to vindicate Christianity, as regarded 
under the influence of a rational scepticism alone, and not to assail 
the advocates of deism, and show their errors, I shall not pursue 
this subject any further. I will alone add the judgment of the 
atheists, upon the rationality of the deistical system. If tliese last 
can justify themselves, by the merits of their abstract reasoning, it 
will be then, and not until then, necessary for us to resume our con- 
troversy with them. 

"The deist exclaims," says Baron Holbach, {Good Se7ise, parag. 
118,) "abstain from worshipping the cruel, capricious God of theolo- 
gy (Christianity;) mine is a being infinitely wise and good; he is the 
father of men, the mildest of sovereigns; it is he who fills the uni- 
verse with his benefits. But do you not see that every thing in this 
world, contradicts the good qualities which youascribe to vourGod? 
In the numerous family of this tender father, almost all are unhappy. 
Under the government of this sovereign, vice is tritiniplmiit nnd vir- 



102 

lue in distress. Among those blessings you extol, and which alone 
your enthusiasm would see, I behold a multitude of evils of every 
kind, against which you obstinately shut your eyes. Forced to ac- 
knowledge that your beneficent God, in contradiction with himself, 
distributes good and evil with the same hand, for his justification, 
you must, like the priest, refer me to the regions of another life. In- 
vent, therefore, another God; for yours is no less contradictory than 
that of the theologians." 

"A good God, who does evil, or consents to the commission of 
evil; a God full of equity, and in whose empire innocence is often 
oppressed; a perfect God who produces none but imperfect and 
miserable works; is not such a God, and his conduct as great mys- 
teries, as that of the Incarnation."* 

The object of my discourse hitherto, has not been to justify 
Christianity in any manner whatever, but only to place the subject 
in a fair light and position, that we may fully scrutinize its actual 
merits, under the most enlightened judgment with which it may be 
regarded. In arranging matters for this purpose, I have assumed 
nothing; every argument I have maintained, and every position I 

*Let no one fall into the great error of supposing, that these objections of 
the atheists, have anybeaiing on the theory of Christianity, although they do 
entirely overwhelm the theory of the deists. The reason of this, is, that the 
foundations of the two systems are altogether different, though their features of 
exhibition may be similar in certain leading points. 

The foundation of the deistical theory, is necessarily restricted to those ar- 
guments, inferences, or judgments, that arise from an inspection of material 
things, and the deductions that men can make from such observations. If, 
therefore, inconsistencies and contradictions are clearly discernable in the sys- 
tem, as estimated by human reason, it certainly is neither a true nor a rational 
system, and the objections of the atheists have thus distinctly exhibited the 
theory of the deists. 

But Christianity rests upon a different foundation. It represents God to 
have made man an intelligent creature, who is, in the present life, undergoing 
a probationary discipline, to prepare him for ulterior purposes in eternit}% and 
this and every other dogma of our faith, be they what they may, are direct 
revelations from the Creator of all things. No objection, therefore, of the 
atheist, can have a bearing upon the theory of Christianit}', because the in- 
finite wisdom of the supposed Creator in his appointments, can never be im- 
f)eachedby the differing opinion or judgment of man, who is an imperfect and 
imited being. The fact whether Christianity be of divine revelation or not, is 
a subject that may be either proved or disproved. The theory of Christianity 
is susceptible neither of proof nor objection. If the atlieists can disprove the 
existence of a Creator, or Fabricator to the universe, it is all well — but cer- 
tainly their difference of opinion, with the supposed creator of all things, as to 
the propriety with wliich the universe ouglit to have been constructed, is not 
simply no argument, but it is a most presumptuous absurdity'. 

But we have already discussed this subject with the atheists, directly at 
page 36, &.c., and indirectly, in our discourse on Moral Distinctions, especially 
at page 91, where we have shown, I apprehend, with sufhcient clearness, that 
all our notions concerning justice, virtue, morality, &c. are the arro2:ant as- 
sumptions of men, who have made their welfare the sole standard, by which 
any state or condition of existence is to be estimated. 



163 

have taken, has been sustained by simple and undeniable proofs. I 
have very freely used the expositions of the more intellectual atheists 
and deists on such points, not only as being of a less suspicious char- 
acter than many of those opinions, maintained by Christian writers, 
but also, because I consider that in certain instances, the atheistical 
and deistical arguments on the abstract points, are the truest, how- 
ever much they have erred in the conclusion drawn from them. 

The deduction to be made from our previous examination and 
analysis, is undoubtedly this; from the examination of the material 
universe we learn nothing whatever concerning the actual nature of 
God, or of his attributes, beyond his intelligence and power. Ex- 
cept in these two particulars alone, every other attribute is entirely 
unknown and inscrutable. And this is the view taken on this sub- 
ject by all the intellectual deists themselves. 

Then all that we claim for Christianity is, that it shall not be sup- 
posed condemnable for any statement it has made concerning Jeho- 
vah, or his proceeding with mankind on the very intelligible ground 
that we know nothing whatever concerning his nature or attributes. 
We do not make the least claim, that because God is, in his na- 
ture, incomprehensible, that the Scripture exhibitions of his provi- 
dential acts are, therefore, to be considered true, because no one can 
show them to be false. Such is not our argument in the least degree; 
all we contend for is, that the nature and attributes of Jehovah 
shall be considered as inscrutable as the God of Nature is admitted 
to be by the deists. Place them precisely in the same incomprehen- 
sible condition of being, as regards their attributes and ultimate pur- 
poses, and we are satisfied. 

But this God of whom we cannot discern any other attributes than 
those of infinite intelligence and power, the biblical writers assert 
has made a formal revelation of himself to mankind, instituted re- 
ligious worship, and confirmed these particulars to them by the exhi- 
bition of miraculous power, or such acts as Deity could alone per- 
form. Now surely God could reveal himself in this manner if he 
pleased. On this point there can be no dispute. The only question 
is, did God do as he is represented to have done in the Scriptures. 
On this question we are at issue with the deists, and on this alone, 
and surely nothing can be plainer, after our preceding exhibition, 
than that the veracity, or the falsehood of the Bible writers is the 
only subject we can possibly examine, in order to decide whether 
the religious system taught in those books is to be credited or not. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ON THE MEANS OF ASCERTAINING THE CREDIBILITY DUE TO HUMAN 
TESTIMONY. 

Before we proceed to exhibit the various arguments that shall es- 
tablish the credibility of the biblical writers, it is necessary that we 
should lay down some general principles concerning the credibility of 
witnesses and the means of ascertaining the truth of their statements. 
This subject was announced in our introductory discourse, at page 
24, as constituting the fourth test, which it was indispensably ne- 
cessary to understand before we could proceed to determine the ques- 
tion of the truth or the falsehood of the Christian religion. 

Though it is impossible to lay down any determinate rule where- 
by we can positively ascertain the credibility of a witness or writer, 
yet the ascertaining their true characters is by no means difficult, 
when we study their history, their interests, and the means they em- 
ploy to accomplish their various purposes. In the complicated events 
and transactions of human life, it is impossible for men to conceal, 
altogether, their real motives. The page of universal history has 
enlightened us so much concerning the constitution of human na- 
ture that it is almost impossible we can be at any loss in discerning 
the true character of individuals, when any continuous relation can 
be procured of their history or actions. 

The general principles by which we must be guided in forming 
our opinions upon human testimony, and the credibility to which it 
is entitled, must be estimated by our knowledge of human nature, 
whether as according to our own experience, or by the study of the 
past history of mankind. 

This principle has been laid down so clearly by Hume, that I 
shall use his authority by the following extract: (Essay on Liberty 
and Necessity, sec. 8th.) 

" It is universally acknowledged, that there is a great uniformity 
among the actions of men in all nations and ages, and that human 
nature remains still the same in its principles and operations. The 
same moti\;es always produce the same actions. The same events 
follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, 
friendship, generosity, public spirit; these passions mixed in various 
degrees, and distributed through society, have been from the begin- 



105 

ningof the world, and still are, the source of all the actions and en- 
terprises which have ever been observed among mankind. Mankind 
are so much the same in all times and places, that history informs 
us of nothing new or strange in this particular. Its chief use, is 
only to discover the constant and universal principles of human na- 
ture, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations, 
and furnishing us with materials, from which we may form our ob- 
servations, and become acquainted with the regular springs of human 
action and behavior. These records of wars, intrigues, factions, and 
revolutions, are so many collections of experiments, by which the 
politician or moral philosopher fixes the principles of his science, in 
the same manner as the physician or natural philosopher becomes 
acquainted with the nature of plants, minerals, and other external 
objects, by the experiments which he forms concerning them. Nor 
are the earth, water, and other elements, examined by Aristotle and 
Hippocrates, more like to those which at present lie under our ob- 
servation, than the men described by Polybius and Tacitus are to 
those who now govern the world. 

Should a traveller, returning from a far country, bring us an 
account of men wholly different from any with whom we were 
ever acquainted; men who were entirely divested of avarice, ambi- 
tion, or revenge; who knew no pleasure but friendship, generosity, 
and public spirit; we should immediately, from these circumstances, 
detect the falsehood, and prove him a liar, with the same certainty 
as if he had stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs and drag- 
ons, miracles, and prodigies." 

But though these principles, as laid down by Hume, are perfectly 
correct, and clearly demonstrate that we have a sufficient foundation 
in the common constitution of human nature, whereby we may 
judge of the real character of individuals, although involved in a 
very complicated mass of events and particulars; yet, the difficulty 
is very great, in the first place, to acquire this requisite amount of 
knowledge, and in the second, to apply that knowledge without pre- 
judice or partiality. 

Supposing, however, the reader has studied the history of man- 
kind as a philosophical subject, and is in possession of a sufficient 
number of facts to guide his judgment, let us ascertain how we 
must proceed, in order to judge correctly of the real character of 
those persons, whose eminence or notoriety in past time, renders 
their true character matters of interesting speculation. 

Before we can undertake to in\:estigate the real character of an in. 
vidual, we must first determine, if possible, what is the common na- 
14 



100 

ture or constitution of mankind. After we have ascertained that 
fact, we may proceed to estimate the force of motives that induce 
men to act under those peculiar circumstances, by which the life of 
any individual has been characterized. 

What then is the common constitution of mankind? What is it 
that constitutes that resemblance that is universally admitted to dis- 
tinguish human nature? 

As far as I have been able to comprehend this subject, it seems to 
me that the phenomena of man's moral existence, exhibits most 
distinctly the fact, that his amount of inconsistencies defy any re- 
duction to one common character. It is undeniable, that the best 
and wisest of men, at times, do evil and foolish things. The profli- 
gate and unjust, at times, do things that are wise and beneficial. At 
times, the weakest prejudices rule the wisest and best of men, and 
again, a fair exposition of truth induces thousands to change their 
opinions and mode of life. Some persons will not do any thing they 
esteem wrong to eave their lives or fortunes, and again, there are some 
who, restrained by no sense of the rights of other men, boldly haz- 
ard their life and fortune, to obtain those objects which others 
again would not take if offered to them. 

In short, the common moral constitution of human nature, is in- 
volved in such an amount of contradictions and inconsistencies, that 
it is impossible for us to assume what the common constitution of 
human nature is, unless by a long specification of its divers contra- 
dictory features. 

But we have hitherto regarded human nature as characterized by 
exhibitions which, however anomalous they may be, are the result of 
a natural or honest amount of imperfections. How much more 
intricate does the speculation become, when we advert to the noto- 
rious fact, that men continually act under the influence of motives 
which the individual hides with all conscious deceit or hypocrisy 
from the world, and under an honest and philanthropic exhibition, 
aims at accomplishing an unprincipled purpose. The world is full 
of such instances; our own experience satisfies us of this fact in the 
ordinary transactions of life, and the page of history abundtuitly ex- 
hibits the great and the renowned of the earth, in too many instances^ 
to have been both unprincipled and unjust, at the very time that they 
made an exhibition of honor, piety, and philanthropy. 

But though these instances of deceitful conduct are sufficiently 
numerous to keep us ever on our guard, that we be not deceived by 
any amount of honorable professions, yet, none but those who are 
conscious of an unprincipled inclination, will deny there arc many 



107 

honest and virtuous individuals in every state and contlition of life, 
who, undefiled by any conscious deceitfulness, have passed tlieir lives 
in all honor and integrity, promoting the welfare and happiness of 
mankind. 

But, however anomalous and inconsistent our own experience and 
the testimony of history may represent the moral constitution of hu- 
man nature, yet there are certain principles that regulate the con- 
duct of mankind, and which, if properly estimated, will most com- 
monly enable us to bring the greatest amount of anomaly or hypo- 
crisy into an exhibition, that with great distinctness, shows the real 
character of the individual. Thus there are no actions of men that 
are not induced by motives, and which though at first capable 
of several different explanations, may very fairly be all reduced to a 
single motive; this prime motive to all human action, is Interest: 
the unprincipled, pursuing that object without any other restraint 
than fear or policy; the moral or religious, only so far as is per- 
mitted by their sense of obligation or duty. It would be useless for 
us to attempt to state the various modifications under which the in- 
terest of individuals developes itself. To do this, we should have to 
enumerate every exhibition of human nature, from the most vaulting 
ambition, down to the silliest vanity, together with every variety and 
degree of animal indulgence, from the most innocent gratification to 
the most unlimited sensuality. It will be sufficient for our purpose, 
to admit the influence of the principle of interest, as just stated to 
exist in every human action, and leave any particular exhibition to 
the conscious estimate of the reader. 

The next step towards appreciating the true character of an in- 
dividual, is, that the inquirer should divest himself of all prejudice 
or partiality, and then very patiently proceed to investigate all those 
circumstances, acts, and professions, that are implicated in the great- 
est amount of history, that can be procured of the particular indi- 
vidual. The greater the number of particulars, and the greater the 
variety of feature which they exhibit, the more accurate will be our 
determination of his character. 

Having now given a general view of t!ie constitution of human na- 
ture, and the principle by which human actions are excited, we have a 
plain course before us, by which we may, with little perplexity, ascer- 
tain whether the writers of the Bible are creditable in their statements 
or not. Their motives and conduct are to be estimated by the know- 
ledge we have of human nature, and the experience that historv fur- 
nishes us of men in similar situations. The only source of prrplevity 
attending our future investigation, aufl which we must now provide 



108 

against, is for the occurrence of those circumstances that are capa- 
ble of being construed by the ascription of different motives; the one 
of which, an adversary may contend, have been criminal, while an 
advocate may consider them to have been honest and virtuous. In 
what manner must we at such times decide between the correctness 
of the inferences that the disputing parties have advanced. 

Here then is a source of considerable embarrassment; for the advo- 
cate of one opinion is not entitled to consider his opponent less wise, 
less judicious, less honest, than himself, and they should, therefore 
endeavor, if possible, to find a solution to the particular difficulty, 
that they may be able to proceed to a just judgm.ent on the whole 
subject. 

I apprehend, where two intellectual men differ in their estimate 
concerning any particular subject that involves the truth or the 
falsehood of the Scripture writings, the rational course must be, to 
ascertain the particular cause of their disagreement. Where the 
parties are both honest and intellectual, we may safely say, their 
difference arises from one or the other having reasoned incorrectly 
on the facts of the case. If we then ascertain the particular points 
of their difference, these subjects can then be detached, and be sub- 
jected to a critical analysis and discussion, by which, for the most 
part, the value of the conflicting arguments can be ascertained, and 
by them the merits of the contested subject. 

Upon this most difficult part of an intellectual scrutiny, concern- 
ing the character of an individual, where we are required to deter- 
mine between the inferential arguments of two capable reasoners, 
though we can furnish no positive rule by which we are to decide 
correctly, yet, I apprehend a very considerable amount of the diffi- 
culty may be removed, by an attentive consideration of the following 
suggestion. 

So long as this supposed difficulty between two intelligent men 
consists in their different estimation of the value of a particular ac- 
tion, or the inferring of the true motives of the individual, under the 
influence of peculiar circumstances, I apprehend every honest inqui- 
rer will be immensely assisted in coming to a correct conclusion, by 
applying to the controverted points, that system of rules which our 
Courts of Law have established concerning the admission and value 
o^ Evidence in all legal proceedings. 

As the philosophical system of the Courts of Law upon this sub- 
ject has never been formerly applied to my knowledge, to the solution 
of difficulties beyond the precincts of the Courts, I beg leave to say 
a few words upon this subject, which I deem to be of the greatest 



109 

importance, towards enabling us to determine, with greater cor- 
rectness, the principles and motives by which the real character of an 
individual is to be ascertained. 

It is barely necessary to call the reader's attention to the nature 
of the business transacted in our Courts of Law. All the various 
and complicated transactions of man, under all possible varieties of 
exhibition, come before legal tribunals, in order that justice shall 
be done the contending parties, whether, in particulars that concern 
life, property, or liberty. 

The first object before the court, is to ascertain the true merits 
of the litigated question. To accomplish this end, every sub- 
ject that is capable of throwing light on its merits, is brought be- 
fore a jury by opposing advocates, who, for the most part, endeavor 
to give their arguments, or proofs, a greater value than they are 
entitled to, at the same time, that they attempt to under-estimate 
those of their opponent. 

To assist the jury in correctly estimating the true value of the 
evidence produced on the case, the courts have established a num- 
ber of rules upon this subject, the great importance and value of 
which, may be at once appreciated, in the fact, that these rules have 
been derived from the long experience of disinterested and intellec- 
tual men, who, for centuries, have been employed in scrutinizing, 
and developing truth, as implicated in all the multiplied transactions 
of human life, whether in its most excellent, or in its most depraved 
modes of exhibition, and in which, both presumption of motives and 
estimate of intentions, constitute most important subjects of investi- 
gation before the jury.* 

But as this subject involves an extensive view of human nature, 
scientifically reduced to principles, upon which the actual' proceed- 
ing of Courts of Law are based, we cannot, from its great extent, 

*The rules of court, in their practical operation, are thus exhibited by a 
most intellectual writer, whose work cannot be too highly appreciated" by 
the moralist or philosopher. 

"The office of the jury is to ascertain the existence of facts, by means of 
the judgment, which they form of the credibility of witnesses, and by infer- 
ences which they make from the circumstances submitted to their considera- 
tion. For the due discharge of this important function, they are supposed to 
be peculiarly well qualified by their experience of the conduct, affairs, and 
dealings of mankind, and the manners and customs of society In this re- 
spect, and to this extent, the law confides implicitly in their knowledge, ex- 
perience, and discretion. It interferes no further, than by laying down cautiona- 
ry 1-ules, to prevent the jury from being deceived or misled, by providing, as far as 
can be done, that the evidence of none but faith-worthy vntnesses shall be admitted, 
and by excluding all such as flows from corrupt or suspicious sources. Having 
done this, the rest is left to the conscience and discretion of the jury." — Starkie on 
Evidence, i. 3 — noterf. 



110 

make any particular exhibition in our present discourse. The sub- 
ject must be studied at large, in the philosophy of the law, and 1 
think, no honest, intellectual man, can undertake it, who will not, at 
every step, find himself enlightened, and remarkably instructed how 
to estimate, and appreciate the true value of evidence, or cred- 
ibility, as implicated in the general history of human nature. 

The correctness of an application of the rules of Courts of Law 
concerning evidence, to an investigation of the credibility of the 
biblical writers, is very manifest. As we have sufficiently shown 
that the whole importance, and truth of the Scripture writings, de- 
pend upon the credibility of their writers — so we can regulate an 
investigation of that subject, and especially, upon all more obscure 
and doubtful points, by a reference to those philosophical principles 
by which Courts of Law proceed, in analogous instances. Since 
the procedure of our courts is universally recognized by every 
honest, intelligent man, to be the very best means in our power, by 
which truth may be ascertained in all the complicated transactions 
of human life — so it is evidently impossible, that an argument on the 
credibility of the Scripture writers, can be placed under the regula- 
tion of a more rational and intellectual scheme of principles. As 
the reasoning of the courts upon this subject, seems to be the perfec- 
tion of reason, according to the light of the present age: so, I ap- 
prehend, any one must be conscious of the weakness of his argument, 
or position, that objects to try its strength, by those rules that man- 
kind have universally approved for estimating the value of evidence, 
as deciding the most important interests of our social condition. 

The plan, therefore, upon which we must proceed to ascertain the 
credibility of those persons who have written the Scripture books, is, 
to judge of them by the experience we have of human nature. We 
must attempt to appreciate their motives in acting, and the whole 
influence of the system they promulgated. We must not only di- 
rectly scrutinize their conduct personally, but we must take a com- 
prehensive view of all those circumstantial particulars involved in 
their proceedings, as characterising the history of entire centuries. 
In short, we must judge of their credibility by all and every of 
those particulars by which human integrity can be tested, as furnish- 
ed by the examples of past ages of time. 



CHAPTER V. 

CORRECTIONS OF THE VALUES OF CERTAIN ARGUMENTS COMMONLY 
ADVANCED BY THE ADVOCATES OF CHRISTIANITY, AND THE REAL- 
LY IMPORTANT OR PRIME ARGUMENT STATED. 

As my views upon the subject of the Evidences of Christianity 
differ, in certain leading features, from those of many other writers 
upon that subject, I shall not proceed with my exhibition of proof 
until I have made some important corrections as to certain specific 
arguments commonly made use of by those who undertake to de- 
fend the truth of revelation. These, in my opinion, are in many re- 
spects placed too high in value as arguments, and have, from this 
circumstance, been somewhat prejudicial to the Christian cause; 
for failing in the maximum of strength assigned them, the reduction 
of their value in the field of controversy with the deists, not only 
places them below their actual value, but, indeed, on some occasions, 
seems to argue a defeat on the general issue. 

Of the various arguments by which Christianity is commonly vin- 
dicated, none is more prominent than the assumption that is impos- 
sible the Scriptures could have been forged and imposed on the Jews 
or first Christians; for as they contain so many remarkable histo- 
ries and statements which have been, from all time, universally ac- 
credited by them, it is impossible there could have ever been a time 
when they were ignorant of such occurrences. Therefore, to sup- 
pose the Scriptures were a forgery which had been brought to the 
knowledge of the people, at a time when they were entirely igno- 
rant of such subjects, is absurd; for tlie people would naturally say, 
how is this? this is the first time we have ever heard of such things. 
And hence it is supposed it would be impossible to persuade the peo- 
ple of the truth of such statements. Now we know the Jews and 
early Christians never had any doubt on these matters, and, tliere- 
fore, it is incredible the Scriptures can be a forgery. 

But this manner of reasoning is altogether deficient as argu- 
ment for the conviction of doubt and incredulily; for it is notorious, 
from the religious defections of the Jews, that the nation at large 
exercised but little belief, at times, in the system under which thev 



112 

were placed by Moses; and hence they neither regarded nor con- 
cerned themselves with what might be written in their sacred books. 
At times so entirely had they thrown off their allegiance i.o Jehovah, 
that, in the kingdom of Israel, he alone knew those who had ab- 
stained from the worship of Baal; for the prophet Elijah declared 
that he knew of none. And in the history of the kingdom of Ju- 
dah we learn the apparently astounding fact, that, in the days of king 
Josiah, both him and the high-priest were so positively ignorant of 
the contents of the sacred books, that they did not know what was 
contained in the law of Moses, (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14 to 19.) Hence 
it was the monarch tore his garments as expressive of the sorrow 
that both him and his people had so much transgressed the require- 
ments of the law of Moses. 

Many persons to get over the embarrassment attending this fact, 
have supposed that the book found by the high-priest was the autograph 
of Moses, which is very possible; but admitting this to be the case, 
it does not remove the objection in the sight of the sceptic, for if cop- 
ies of the law were common among the Jews, the reading of Moses's 
autograph could have conveyed no information that they had not in 
the copies. But it is evident that by reading this book, king Josiah, 
though then twenty -six years of age, and after a religious educa- 
tion and life, received information of which he had been previously 
ignorant. 

Nevertheless, it does not follow that there were not a greater or 
less number of religious persons at that very time, who both held 
copies of the Scripture and regulated their lives by its precepts. 

But whatever explanation may be made concerning this seeming- 
ly remarkable ignorance of the king and high-priest, it must be evi- 
dent, that none but a Jew or Christian can appreciate the circum- 
stance as being consistent with that great traditional reverence at- 
tributed to the Jews in the preservation of the Scripture writings; 
and no deist or sceptic can receive a satisfactory solution to his 
doubt, until the general history and institutions of the Jewish people 
shall be so distinctly vindicated in their integrity, that the existence 
of anomalous circumstances can be admitted to have taken place, 
without necessarily infirmingthe whole system. 

And finally, on this point, when to special objections made by the 
deists or sceptics from particulars stated in the Bible itself, the un- 
deniable fact is urged that religious forgeries and impostures have 
taken place with other nations who believe in such writings as con- 
fidently as we do in the Scriptures, it is impossible that any one, 
sceptically inclined, shall admit more than that the integrity of the 



113 

Jewish Scripture seems to have been better guarded frotn human 
frauds, than the rehgious books of any other ancient people, liut 
such an admission as this would by no means imply that the Bible 
was to be esteemed of divine dictation. 

Another argument as it is called, in favor of the Scriptures, arises 
from the exhibition of frag-ments of extracts made from ancient Pa- 
gan writers, that testify more or less directly to the truth of certain 
historic matters related in the Bible. Now the historic narrative 
of the Scripture, divested of its peculiar theological exhibitions, I 
presume no intellectual sceptic would care to admit, for their scruples 
do not regard such particulars, but the fact, did God act, did God re- 
veal himself as is related in the Bible? 

Indeed Lord Bolingbroke, a professed deist, recognizes distinctly 
a greater or less amount of historic truth in the Scripture narrations.* 

By these observations, I do not undervalue, in the least degree, 
any of those literary labors on Pagan antiquity that tend to confirm 
any Scripture relation. All I contend is, that such illustrations, 
though they are valuable confirmations of the truth of the Scripture 
relations, are not arguments to convince the incredulous that the 
Scriptures are of divine authority. It is only by appreciating the 
true value, or importance of every position bearing on this subject, 
that we shall be enabled to apply our strength in right place. 

I also consider that the argument as commonly founded on the 
miracles related in the Scripture history, are wholly inoperative in 
our present investigation, for before any one can admit the value of 
miraculous testimony, he must be confident that the miracle actually 
occurred, that they are neither forgeries nor artfully exaggerated 
accounts of natural events, nor the dextrous exhibitions of priestly 

* "I am willing to suppose that these impure channels are pure, (i.e. Egyp- 
tian, Phoenician, Chaldean, Indian, and Greek traditions and histories, such 
as they are extracted by the defenders of the Bible,) and that they have con- 
veyed these anecdotes down to us just as they stood in the ancient books from 
which they are said to be taken. What will this concession prove? That 
there were various traditions in a most remote antiquity, concerning the crea- 
tion, the flood, and the destruction of Sodom, about Abraham and other patri- 
archs, about David and other kings of the Jews. It will show (i. e. this con- 
cession) that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Isiaelites, and probably eve- 
ry one of the eastern nations, had their systems of traditions, whereof that of 
the Old Testament alone is come down to us entire. The same nanies and 
many circumstances of the same events must of course have been mentioned 
in ail. But such a conformity proves nothing. As they agreed in some, they 
might differ in other particulars, and the whole tenor of' those that are lost 
might be repugnant to one another, and to that of the Jews. Abraham was a 
name famous in all of them. Isaac was known to the Arabians as well as Ish- 
mael, and Ishmael to the Jews as well as Isaac; but they tell verj'' different 
stories about the legitimacy, and rank, and favor with God of the tu-o brothers," 
&,c.— Lord Bolingbroke, v. 322. 
15 



114 

contrivance. But in what manner is the sceptic to be convinced 
that the miracles related in the Bible did actually occur, unimpeach- 
able by the preceding suspicions. All reference to the steady un- 
wavering belief of the Jews, or of the early Christians, to the truth 
of the Scripture miracles, is an argument of no force whatever in the 
present instance, for not only have we, in a preceding page, shown 
that such a position cannot be sustained, but it must be evident, that 
such an argument would justify a belief in the miraculous transac- 
tions of the Hindoo Mythology, which indeed, are contained in books 
perhaps of equal antiquity with those ascribed to Moses. 

It seems to me there prevails among the Christian world, such 
erroneous views of the value of the miracles related in the Bible, 
that it will be a matter of no little consequence to exhibit them aright, 
for I hardly know of any subject involved in the truth of the Scrip- 
ture that is more improperly judged, whether by Christians or deists. 

It would be a waste of time to define what a miracle is, every one 
understands their nature without any explanation from us. But con- 
cerning their value as testimony, men fall into the greatest mistakes, 
unless they are careful to distinguish them in time, as being present 
or past, as being seen by ourselves, or as being related by others/ 

If a man professes to be a messenger from God, communicating 
some religious command or doctrine, he ought to confirm the truth 
of his statement by the exhibition of some credential from that God 
by whom he asserts he has been sent. If such a person exhibits any 
display of supernatural power or intelligence, which is unimpeacha- 
ble on the score of any artful dexterity, or delusion, it is impossible 
that any reasonable man, actually seeing and judging of the miracle, 
shall hesitate to acknowledge the authority or commission of the 
messenger. 

But the case is entirely different with those persons who have not 
witnessed the miracle themselves. They can only believe the fact 
of its having occurred by the unhesitating reliance they place in the 
credibility of those who actually witnessed its exhibition, and who 
have reported the circumstance. 

Miracles, then, as witnessed in their fulfilment, are overwhelming 
evidence to the truth of the doctrine or injunction implicated with 
that exhibition of supernatural power, and which no sane man could 
undertake to reject. 

But the degree of authority we are to concede to the historic re- 
lation of miracles that took place in past time, is a matter that re- 
quires intellectual discernment and judgment, not as to the possibility 



115 

of the miracle itself, but as to the credibility, capacity, and disin- 
terestedness of the narrator. 

But to avoid any ambiguity by attempting to speak generally on 
this subject, let us at once come to the point of interest, to wit, the 
Scripture miracles, and ascertain their actual value as evidence un- 
der the peculiarity of circumstances with which they are invested. 

In what manner can the miracles, which are related in the Bible 
to have been accomplished some thousand years ago, be used to con- 
firm the truth of that religious system taught us in the Scriptures? 

If the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, &;c., had left us ex- 
plicit testimony concerning the miraculous events of Jewish history, 
no one would be justified in rejecting such testimony, but as we have 
no such independent relation from those nations, it must be evident, 
we would never have heard of the miracles but from- the circum- 
stance of their being recorded in the Scripture. If they had not 
been recorded there, we should be as absolutely ignorant of their 
having been exhibited, as much so, as if they had never taken place. 
Consequently, all the credit we may give to any miraculous event 
related in the Scripture, depends wholly upon the credibiHty of the 
writers of the Scripture, for it is impossible for us to obtain any in- 
dependent proof that the miracle has occurred. 

The first step then, and before we can use the authority of the 
miracle, is to establish the absolute credibility of the relator, and if 
this be done to our entire satisfaction, we believe that the miracle 
did actually occur as related. But what do we gain by such a pro- 
cedure towards vindicating the religious doctrines (aught in the 
Scriptures. In my view, we have gained no weight of argument 
by substantiating the miracle, for if we have been able to establish 
the credibility of the biblical writers to that degree, that we can 
unhesitatingly believe on their autlwrity, that the miracle took place, 
we surely may at once believe on the score of that credibility, the 
doctrines that are announced to us, for to establisli the truth of the 
doctrine or system, the miracle itself was originally exhibited. 

Since a past miracle can have no argument or demonstration of 
its truth embodied in itself, but is absolutely dependant upon historic 
relation, I apprehend they cannot in themselves, be brought forward 
as matters of evidence to us of the present day. Their whole force, 
as divine evidence appears to have been exhausted upon the c^•e- 
witnesses, and they have come down to us simply as matters of his- 
toric truth, which we should alone be required to vindicate as being 
free from any fraudulent imputation, as the contrivance or forgery of 
knavish impostors. But I do not perceive how it is possible, to give 
them directly the force of divine evidences, since their credibility 



116 

depends exclusively on the character of the relator. It id a most 
glaring instance of what the logicians call arguing in a circle, to 
prove the Scripture by the miracles, and then prove the miracles 
by the Scripture. 

In thus assigning vi'hat I think the actual value of miracles,* let 
no one suppose, that 1 am of that less than semi-Christian school, 
which, under the plea of rationality, undertakes to do away every 
thing that implies the visible, divine agency of God, so as to make 
the miracles of the Scripture, mere matters of ordinary and natural 
occurrence, which, men, in their simplicity and love of the marvelous, 
have magnified into miraculous interpositions. I hold no such no- 
tion, but receive the biblical relations of miraculous transaction 
without the least difficulty, or hesitation, on the score of the actual 
divine agency in performing such exhibitions: nevertheless, I re- 
ceive them not as matters of religious faith, but as being historic 
truths, essentially connected with the consistency of Scripture nar- 
ration, and as inseparable from it, as much so as the relation of ordi- 
nary and natural occurrences in the Jewish history. 

And as matters of historic relation and occurrence, it is just as 
possible that the miraculous transactions, recorded in the Bible, may 
be incorrectly stated, as any other historic relation, and if sufficient 
argument is produced, to justify the belief that any particular mira- 
cle of the Scripture is incorrectly related, or that it be an interpo- 
lation, it would cost me no more moral exertion to correct or cancel 
the biblical statement, than it would to correct, or cancel, any mere 
historical i-elation in the history of the kings of Judah or Israel, nor 
would the procedure weaken my belief in the doctrines taught in 
the Scripture in the least degree, since I hold them true, from argu- 
ments wholly independent of the accuracy with which miraculous 
transactions may be stated. f 

* Lord Brougham, in his Treatise on Natural Theology, a work I have but 
just seen, has advanced so strange a notion on the subject of the value of mi- 
raculous evidence, that I must beg leave, to offer a short comment on that opin- 
ion, in the ficst Appendix to this work. 

f It is by no means incredible, that some of the miracles related in the Bible, 
have been interpolated in the text from Apocryphal books, and which never' 
did occur. The miracle of the Sun and Moon standing still, at the command 
of Joshua, is "very obnoxious to such a suspicion, without noticing other in- 
stances. 

Now if this miracle has been inserted from the apocryphal book of Jasher, 
how many persons have there been that have regarded it as an eminent proof 
of the divine providence of God to the Jewish nation, and yet, it is possible, 
the relation is wholly untrue. The mere relation of a miraculous transaction 
in the Bible, therefore, does not prove that such an event took place. And 
not until the miracle be proved true, can it be urged as an evidence of divine 
approbation. And certainly if we can adduce sufficient evidence to believe 
the miracles, we can believe in our religions doctrines at the present time, 
without assistance of the miracles. 



117 

I apprehend that I am fully sustained in this view of the value of 
miracles by the highest authority. Our Saviour, in the parable of 
the rich man and Lazarus, seems to state this emphatically. The 
rich man requested Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brethren, 
lest they should come to the same condemnation; to whom Abraham 
replies, they have Moses and the prophets. Nay, says the rich man, 
father Abraham, but if one should go to them from the dead; if, re- 
plies Abraham, they do not believe Moses and the prophets, neither 
will they believe if one should rise from the dead. 

If any inference is justifiable from our Saviour's observation, it is 
that there is an amount of evidence somewhere in the writings of 
"Moses and the prophets," that is greater in its intrinsic value than 
that implied in the miraculous return of a man from the dead to 
warn the living of future judgment; than which there can be no 
greater miracle. 

Now, certainly, the relation of the miraculous transactions in the 
times of Moses and the prophets did not constitute the evidence 
which our Saviour says was to be discerned in their writings; for 
the force of an occular exhibition of Lazarus returning from the dead 
to the brethren of the rich man would be, assuredly, greater evi- 
dence to them than a relation by others of the past miracles of Jew- 
ish history, which they could not have seen. But our Saviour says, 
explicitly, that the evidence to be discerned in examining the wri- 
tings of Moses and the prophets \wdi^ greater than the actual miracu- 
lous exhibition of the deceased Lazarus to the eyes of the brethren 
of the rich man. 

Let it be our undertaking, then, to ascertain this evidence in Mo- 
ses and the prophets; that is as great, if not greater, than that con- 
veyed by actually witnessing the stupendous miracle of a man raised 
from the dead. 

But to return to the consideration of the improper value assigned 
by Christian writers to certain arguments by which they undertake 
to vindicate the Scripture writings. 

The excellent morality taught in the Scriptures is no proof of 
their divine original. As exhibiting the best and most perfect scheme 
of morals with which we are acquainted, Christianity is to be con- 
sidered the best and most perfect system of which we have any 
knowledge. But, nevertheless, this will not establish its claim of 
being a divine institution, for however men may delude and impose 
upon their fellow men, they can only do so under the guise of mo- 
rality and religion. No impostor or knave can desire that mankind 
should be otherwise than under the influence of virtuous or moral in- 



118 

stitutions; for, as sucn, the very authority of the impostors them- 
selves would be sustained. Excellent codes of morality, therefore, 
being both useful to such persons, and recommendatory in the eyes 
of the people at large, it must be very evident that no moral in- 
stitutions, however beneficial they may be, are any guarantee that 
the promulgator of the system is not an impostor.* 

Where the system of morality is so absolutely faultless as that 
promulgated in the Scriptures,! that fact is a most important con- 
firmation of its divine institution. 

Neither can we consider the prophecies, generally speaking, to 
furnish direct evidence for the purpose of convincing the unbelief 
or incredulity of sceptics. Their chief and important use is, to 
strengthen and confirm the faith of believers. Thus, for the most 
part, the prophecies are delivered in the indirect language of meta- 
phors, and symbolic representations, which, in order to comprehend, 
it is necessary that the individual should be well imbued in a know- 
ledge of the Scripture writings, which is never the case with an in- 
credulous and sceptical person. 

When prophecy has been well studied, it becomes a powerful as- 
sistant to the faith of believers, as all such will readily admit. But 
to use prophecy as evidence of the inspiration of the Scripture to a per- 
son sceptically inclined, seems to me almost a hopeless proceeding. 
Such persons are not only ignorant of the signification of the sym- 
bolic figures employed in the prophetic annunciations, but they 
cherish a direct prejudice against the whole theory of the Scripture 
writings themselves, to such a degree, that they are actually incapa- 
ble of making the exertion necessary to comprehend the scope of 
the prophetic intimations. Hence, with the smallest exhibition of 
the fulfilment of prophecy, they immediately resort to the supposi- 
tion, that the prediction cannot be proved to have been written prior 
to its apparent fulfilment; which negative position, however unrea- 
sonable it may be, is not only difficult to disprove, but in the more 
ancient instances, impossible. 

* Lest any one should misunderstand me on this subject, I will simply ask, 
if, supposing the morality of the Christian religion be altogether unknown, 
whether would the then next best or most perfect system be, in that fact, en- 
titled to be considered of divine appointment? If it would not be so entitled, 
then neither is Christianity to be so considered at present. 

Christianity is, as far as we can perceive, perfect in its moralit}', and this 
feature is altogether confirmatory of its claim to be considered of divine appoint- 
ment; but this excellency of itself is not sufficient to establish that it is of di- 
vine appointment. 

I All the intellectual deists have expressly admitted the superior excellence 
of Christianity as a moral system over every other system whatever. We 
shall, in a more suitable place, quote their very expression of that opinion. 



119 

I shall, therefore, make no use of arguments derived from the ful- 
filment of prophecy, in this essay, as addressed to the sceptical 
reader, until I have established such a foundation, for the truth of 
the Christian religion, that the fulfilment of the Scripture prophe- 
cies shall be discerned an evident seal of the approbation of Chris- 
tianity, by that Being who can alone be supposed to know the events 
of futurity. 

Having now exhibited every subject which I can perceive to in- 
terfere with a strictly rational investigation concerning the actual 
truth of the Christian religion, I now proceed to state the course we 
shall pursue as being best suited to procure a correct judgment. 

In conformity with opinions already announced in a preceding 
page, I reiterate the belief, that the only sure argument upon which 
we can receive the Christian religion as a divine institution, depends 
upon the absolute credibility of the biblical writers. If we can 
prove them absolutely free from every imputation of knavery and 
fraud, I cannot see how their testimony can be rejected. If we can 
sustain our argument on this particular subject, we can afterwards 
strengthen ourselves impregnably by the supreme excellence of the 
moral doctrines they have taught, and by the fulfilment of the pro- 
phecies they have announced. Their mere historic relations may 
be shown confirmed more or less by Pagan antiquities, the condition 
of the natural and moral world may be shown entirely accordant 
with their statements, and thus no deficiency of argument can be 
imputed to the combined efforts of the several vindicators of the 
truth of our religious system. 

Nor do I feel the least hesitation in expressing my belief, that evi- 
dence justifying an absolute and entire confidence in the credibility 
of the biblical writers, is to be procured to the full satisfaction of 
every one holding only rational doubts as to the truth of the Scripture 
annunciations. 

But no one must require an absolute demonstration of the fact, for 
by the avowed scheme of Christianity itself, we are taught that every 
man is in a state of intellectual and moral discipline before God. 
Hence every man must, as a free agent, under probation, decide by 
his own intellectual perceptions, and by his own conscientious jud<T-. 
ment, whether he will receive or reject the revelation thus made. 
No man, therefore, under the scheme of Christianity, as an intellec- 
tual moral agent, can be justified in fortifying himself in a passive 
incredulity, as if in a strong tower, and require that his ignorance, 
prejudice, and disinclination shall be taken by storm, and he be thus 
emphatically compelled to enter into the kingdom of God. The 



120 

blessings, whether present or future, pertaining to that kingdom, are 
freely offered to all who will seek for them, but they are not forced 
by compulsion upon those who see fit to disregard them. Nullum 
remedium posuit Deus pervicacicB. It is sufficient that the terms of 
admission into the heavenly kingdom are proposed to mankind, who 
are free to choose, free to reject — connected on the one hand with 
every thing desirable, and on the other, with every thing unhappy. 
The opportunity to choose, is put into every man's power in Christen- 
dom, and the very purpose for which man has been made, is that as 
a free agent, he shall determine for himself his condition in eternity. 
If that existence be an unhappy one the fault is his own. 

We have now brought the subject of our investigation, after a 
most deliberate examination of the circumstances by which it is 
surrounded, to a very simple and plain case. As Christians, we as- 
sert that the truth or the falsehood of the Christian religion depends, 
first, upon the veracity of those persons who have written the 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and secondly, upon the 
integrity of text with which those writings have been preserved to 
this our day. These subjects we shall investigate in due order. 

Our confidence in the veracity of the biblical writers does not rest 
upon any want of evidence that may criminate their motives; I think 
we are abundantly able to discern them so evidently honest, and so 
entirely free from the very suspicion of knavery and imposture, that 
we can unhesitatingly give them our entire confidence. 

And this confidence can be justified by no very great amount of 
exposition, for it is impossible for us to entertain more than two 
opinions concerning those who have written the volume of Scripture. 
Either the authors of these books were knaves and impostors, or they 
were honest men who are entitled to be credited in the statements 
they have made. On this point there can be no embarrassment, for 
it is evident there can be no mean opinion between the two. The 
writers of the Bible must have been either wholly knaves and im- 
postors, or wholly honest and upright. 

In the ordinary transactions of human life, individuals may be at 
various times either honest or profligate, but in the promulgation 
and continuance of a remarkable system, asserted to have been insti- 
tuted by God himself, and to have been sustained by a long succes- 
sion of supernatural agencies, it is utterly impossible, that any order 
of men, proclaiming such a system, could be on that special scheme, 
impostors at one time, and honest, veracious men at another. 

The advocates tor Christianity, therefore, assert that the Bible 
was written by honest men, under divine influences, not only with- 



121 

out sinister motives or selfish considerations, but for the welfare and 
happiness of mankind. 

Those who oppose the Christian religion, say it was devised by 
artful, cunning men, to answer selfish and corrupt purposes. 

Now these two propositions most assuredly exhibit the true points 
of dispute concerning the value of the biblical writings, and any one 
anxious to discover truth, must try tlie question on these points 
alone. Other particulars involved with the general subject, may be 
either capable of different solutions or may be altogether incompre- 
hensible, but not so with the two propositions above staled — there 
can be no intermediate opinion. But one can be true, and that, I 
presume, must be so absolutely. 

And we can bring the subject of our examination under the scrutiny 
of the most severe and rigid analysis, for, from the eminent position 
of the Jewish priesthood in the biblical writings, they have been ever 
charged with all the fraud and imposture that is implicated in the 
Scripture writings. From the testimony of universal history, this 
suspicion of the Jewish priesthood was certainly justifiable previous 
to an examination of the biblical writings, but how any one could 
have made the examination and continued of that opinion, seems to 
me surprising. But, however the fact may be, we have never seen 
nor heard any imputation cast on the Bible that did not unhesitating- 
ly ascribe it to frauds and impostures of the priesthood, and they as 
being the only persons ever charged v/ith the fraud, are the individ- 
uals whose proceedings require our utmost powers of scrutiny and 
analysis. 

That we may be the better enabled to commence our investiga- 
tion of this particular subject, I shall furnish some extracts from the 
more eminent infidel writers, as to what they consider the leading 
and important features in the priestly character, so that we may VvaiU 
no aid in our proposed undertaking, of rightly appreciating the con- 
duct of the Jewish priests. 

Baron Holbach in various parts of his atheistical writings, speaks 
of priests in the follow manner: "Priests have ever shown themselves 
the friends of despotism and the enemies of public liberty; their trade 
requiresabjectandsubmissiveslavcs, who have never the audacity to 
reason. Instead of conducting the people to salvation, priests have 
always conducted them to servitude.'* 

Again the same writer informs us, 

"The dogmas, the ceremonies, the morals, and the virtues pre- 
scribed by every religion in tlie world, are visibly calculated only 
to extend the pouer, or augment tlio cmolumcntt;of the founders and 
16 



122 

ministers of these religions. The cerennonies and practices procure 
the priests riches or respect. And the only object of all religious 
virtues is evidently the advantage of the ministers of religion." 

Lord Bolingbroke states, 

"Such is the knavery and such the folly of mankind, that no ex- 
ample, ancient or modern, Pagan or Christian, can be produced of a 
priesthood, once established, that has not aimed at acquiring from 
their institution, and that has not acquired, sooner or later, immod- 
erate wealth and exorbitant power." 

Hume observes, 

"In all ages of the world priests have been enemies to liberty, and 
it is certain that this steady conduct of theirs must have been found- 
ed on fixed reasons of interest and ambition. All princes that have 
aimed at despotic power, have known of what importance it was to 
gain the established clergy. As the clergy on their part have shown 
a great facility in entering into the views of such princes." 

It is no use to multiply further authorities from the atheists or 
deists on the subject of the priesthood; it must be sufficiently clear 
that the order is essentially charged with an inordinate desire after 
arbitrary power, whether temporal or spiritual, and an insatiable 
cupidity of wealth and its consequent enjoyment. 

That such has been almost universally the character of the priest- 
hood in the past history of mankind, is indisputable; and the excep- 
tions are but rare in point of numbers. But, as a general observa- 
tion, including the entire history of mankind, it involves the pro- 
ceedings of all the knaves and impostors that have ever lived, and 
all the false religions promulgated by them. The observation also 
includes all those various corrupt practices that have taken place in 
the church of God during the lapse of many centuries, in some of 
which religion seemed almost banished from the earth. But am- 
bition, pride, and sensuality, are not peculiar to priests; they are the 
predominant sins of human nature; and it is nothing singular that 
the priesthood should, in their corrupt proceedings, exhibit those 
moral aberrations that are universally discerned to take place in the 
common constitution of humanity. 

We care not, however, how deeply corrupt and vicious the general 
character of the priesthood may be exhibited by the history of past 
time, for we shall be able to exhibit the founders of the Jewish church 
as far as they are mvolved with such particulars, so distinctly disin- 
terested, that the darker the ground may be colored, it will only serve 
to make more brilliant that exhibition of truth which is the more 
remarkable, as beiu<{ elsewhere undiscernable. 



123 

Having now settled all our leading principles, let us proceed with 
our investigation to ascertain the degree of credibility to which the 
writers of the biblical volume are entitled. And first, what is the 
Bible, and what is its true character? 

The Bible is not, in itself, a revelation from God; it is a history 
of sundry revelations made by God to mankind, which men have 
committed to writing, and have preserved, by natural means, through 
successive copyists and translators to this, our time. 

The Bible, taking the whol€ composition under this general appella- 
tion, relates that God made the world, and all things that are therein; 
that he placed man at the head of this creation to undergo a cer- 
tain discipline or probation; but the progenitors of the human race 
soon fell from a happy condition into one abounding with trouble and 
sorrow, eventually terminating in death. In these calamitous cir- 
cumstances, we, their posterity, have been involved as being born 
after their ejection from Paradise. In fiiture time, when men 
had greatly multiplied upon the earth, and had corrupted their ways 
nearly altogether before God, the Bible represents Jehovah as se- 
lecting the Jewish people and placing them under the discipline of a 
peculiar economy, known as the institutions of Moses. This system 
prevailed until that certain time had arrived when Jeliovah saw fit to 
expand the Jewish economy into the universal scheme of Christianity. 
Judaism and Christianity are not difl^erent in their principle or pur- 
pose, but the one was the earlier, the other the latter stage, of the 
same single scheme. The one was the more elementary, the other 
the more perfect exhibition, or as St. Paul has said, the first was as 
a schoolmaster to teach us how we should receive the latter. 

The religious system announced by the Scriptures is very plain, 
and as its terms are so exceedingly simple, I earnestly request the 
reader, if he be a sceptic, to keep them ever in remembrance; for 
the only real importance of the Bible is, that it announces to us the 
following particulars: 

1st, That God has placed man as a free agent before him, to un- 
dergo probation or discipline according to the requirements of a 
moral law, sanctioned by him. 

2d, That God has distinctly recognized a greater or less degree 
of inability in man to keep this law perfectly, whether as occurring 
through mere ignorance or through any deceitfulness of heart or 
intellect prevailing against his knowledge. 

3d, To meet this infirmity of human nature, God has promised 
that though men do sin against his commands, that, nevertheless, he 
will pardon their transgression, and bestow his blessing on them if 



1-24 

they will sincerely repent of their sin, and resort to those means of 
expiation that he has directed the penitent to use. 

Hence it is clear, that the Bihle, strictly speaking, is only impor- 
tant to us as containing the articles of a covenant that God is stated 
to have made with mankind. The history of the Jewish church 
and nation, the prophetic writings, and the devotional and moral 
books, though highly interesting and important, both as furnishing 
us explanatory views or testimony supporting the truth of the cove- 
nant, yet, in themselves, contain no matter of essential importance 
beyond the confirmation or explanation they give to the truth of the 
COVENANT as abovc stated. 

I cannot too earnestly request the reader to keep ever in mind the 
intrinsic value of the biblical writings to us, as set forth in the state- 
ments made above. If he will have this matter continually in his 
view, and that the sole object of our present undertaking is to as- 
certain the value of the testimony affirming those statements, he 
will always be able to preserve himself from confusion or perplexity 
amidst the unavoidable discussion of the numerous subjects through 
which we must necessarily pass, before we can sufficiently decide 
upon the actual credibility of the Scripture writers. 

After we have decided upon the moral or personal credibility of 
the writers, it will be our next object to investigate the integrity of 
the biblical text and other critical matters, as well as to ascertain 
those particulars that Christianity requires from us, whether as mat- 
ters of faith or practice. 



,1t' 



CHAPTER VI. 

ON THE CHARACTER OF MOSES AND THE PRIESTHOOD, AS IMPLICA- 
TED IN THE CIVIL INSTITUTIONS OF THE JEWS. 

Whatever the subject may be; whether pertaining to the com- 
mon history of mankind, to that of private individuals, or to the con- 
stitution of the Jewish church or nation, that is contained in the 
first five books of the Scripture, rests alone upon the credibility to 
which the writer or writers of those books may be shown to be en- 
titled. 

The common, perhaps the universal, opinion of our day, is, that 
Moses is to be regarded substantially the author of the Pentateuch, 
however different our copies may be from the books or documents 
originally written or dictated by him: for it is evident, that certain 
particulars related in our present copies, have been added, after the 
death of Moses, and very probably by different persons, at different 
times. 

The question as to the actual amount of authorship, to be ascribed 
to Moses in the composition of the Pentateuch, appears to me a cu- 
rious, rather than an important subject. The books themselves, are 
not formally inscribed with his name, though many passages in them 
bear internal evidence of having been written by him, or by his au- 
thority. But how much, or how little, is to be ascribed to him, it 
is impossible for us to determine. All we shall claim at present, is, 
that more or less was written by Moses, whatever else may possi- 
bly have been added by Samuel, by Ezra, or by any other scribes 
or commentators, now forgotten or unknown. 

By the preceding statement, it will be perceived, that we con- 
sider the question of authorship, rather a subject of criticism than 
of religion; for as a question pertaining to religion, the matter of 
interest, is alone, whether the statements made in the Pentateuch 
are true or false; let the book have been written by whom it may. 

We propose, therefore, not to concern ourselves, at the present mo- 
ment, with the question as to the particular authorship of the lite- 
rary composition of the Pentateuch, but to ascertain, if possible, the 
true moral character of the writer or writers of those books that we 
may be enabled to judge whether the religious doctrines announced 



126 

by them in the Pentateuch, are to be received or not, for in this 
fact alone, does their importance consist. 

In order to discuss our subject with due regard to order, we shall 
begin our investigation with the liistory of Moses, as detailed in the 
Bible, be it true or false, for it is evident from the Scriptures, that 
the institutions and history of the Jewish nation are made depend- 
ant upon a peculiar civil and religious constitution attributed to 
Moses. Where the system itself begins, there we naturally should 
commence with our analytical examination. 

It was alone through the hands of Moses, that the Jewish church 
was constituted, and perfected in all its appointments, nothing having 
been added to the institutions attributed to him, in any period du- 
ring the after continuance of the national church. The priests or 
prophets who chronologically succeeded each other in the adminis- 
tration of religious services, but filled the stations appointed them 
by Moses, or made further communications from Jehovah, as simply 
confirming the authority of the Mosaic constitutions. They there- 
fore all depend on the truth of the divine mission of Moses, and the 
dispensation committed to him He is the principal, the others ac- 
cessories. And upon this system, established, as we believe, by 
Moses, arises the Christian church, the perfection of the Jewish 
economy, for Christ himself has said, that he came not to destroy the 
law of Moses, but to fulfil its scheme and purpose. 

We think proper here to anticipate any captious objections that 
might be made as to the propriety of our commencing this investi- 
gation with the era and history of Moses, for it may possibly be as- 
serted, that by so doing, we assume certain things not proved, as 
for instance, the actual existence of such a man as Moses, dec. 

It can make no difference whatever to the fairness of our propo- 
sed examination, whether Moses be supposed by the reader to have 
really lived, or whether he be a pure fiction of the biblical writers. 

It must be evident, that the author of the Pentateuch, be he whom 
he may, represents a real or fictitious Moses, to have been the 
founder of the Jewish law and economy. And hence, as the Bible 
ascribes the origin of the system to a particular individual, and to a 
particular era, we should commence our analysis with those very 
particulars with which the system itself begins, and not until a com- 
plete analysis and investigation of the subject has been made, ought 
any one to express a judgment on the matter, whether it be true, or 
whether it be an imposture. 

Others perhaps may contend, that we are bound to prove the 
Scriptures true, from the beginning to the end, and therefore may 



127 

insist, that we shall first prove, to their satisfaction, the truth of the 
facts related, in the order they occur in the book of Genesis. Let 
us ask such a one what kind of proof he requires on those particu- 
lars. Is it from any inspection of natural things? Natural things 
can bear no testimony, whether for, or against them. Is it from the 
historical records or traditions of other nations? There are no his- 
torical records or traditions of other nations preserved, that can de- 
termine the controverted points. How can we prove, historically, 
the occurrence of events, when the sole knowledge we possess of 
them, is alone derived from the Scripture page. 

The belief to which the early historical part of the book of Gen- 
esis may be entitled, depends therefore, entirely upon the credibility 
of the writer of the Pentateuch, and as the Bible itself seems to refer 
the composition of the Pentateuch, alike to the era, as to the author- 
ity of Moses; with him and with his era, therefore, must our analy- 
sis with all propriety commence. 

According to the plan which we have proposed, we shall open this 
subject with a slight sketch of the personal history of Moses. In 
doing this we shall only exhibit the relation of the Scripture, with- 
out adding to it any of those confirmations of certain particulars 
which we could, in this instance, have produced from Pagan authori- 
ties. 

Moses, the great legislator of the Jewish people, was born during 
that time when the nation was held in grievous bondage by the 
Egyptians, and according to the piandates of an inhuman prince, was 
exposed on the banks of the river Nile that he might perish. But 
by the contrivance of his mother, it so happened that the infant was 
discovered by the daughter of the Egyptian monarch. She, affected 
with the sight of a fine child thus exposed to die, humanely saved him 
from the apparent danger, had him educated under her patronage, 
and as we may reasonably suppose, with all the advantages attend- 
ing such protection. But, notwithstanding the circumstances pecu- 
liar to the education of Moses, he appears to have regarded the 
people from whom he had sprung with all national predilection, for 
when he saw an Egyptian on some particular occasion abusing an 
Israelite, he slew the oppressor. Anticipating the vengeance of the 
monarch for this act, he fled from Egypt into the land of Midian, 
where he continued forty years engaged in the simple occupation of 
a shepherd. In the last year of this long exile, and whilst feeding 
his flocks near mount Horeb, he there witnessed the extraordinary 
appearance of a bush, blazing with fire, which, nevertheless, was not 
consumed. As he drew nigh to examine this phenomenon more 



128 

particularly, a voice was heard calling on him by name, announciDg 
the presence of the God of his fathers, and informing him that 
Jehovah had chosen him to be the agent by which the Iraeiites should 
be delivered from their servitude in Egypt. Moses did not readily 
assume this commission, but suggested so many objections, that the 
Scriptures mform us the displeasure of Jehovah was manifested 
against his want of faith and confidence. But, finally, he departed 
on his mission, and his brother Aaron was appointed his coadjutor. 
On the appearance of Moses and Aaron before the Egyptian 
monarch, with the command of Jehovah that he should release the 
Israelites, their commission was disbelieved, and their requirement 
disregarded. But, ultimately, in consequence of extraordinary mani- 
festations of divine displeasure, the permission was given that the 
whole Jewish people, with all their property, might leave Egypt. An 
immense number of persons were thus suddenly put into motion, and 
who immediately directed their march towards the shores of the 
Red Sea, where the waters were miraculously divided that they 
might gain the opposite coast of Arabia, and escape from the hos- 
tile pursuit of their oppressive masters, who regretted that they had 
allowed them to leave the kingdom. 

Shortly after this event, and whilst in the desert of Arabia, the 
peculiar system that so remarkably characterised the Jewish people, 
was communicated to them by Moses, and, as we are told in the 
Scriptures, with miraculous exhibitions of the divine approbation. 

Moses presided over the Jewish nation for about forty years after 
this event, leading them in various directions throughout the desert 
until all the adults who had left Egypt should die ofl'. This pro- 
ceeding was ordered by Jehovah as a punishment for their incredu- 
lity in his promises and disobedience to his commands. When the 
time arrived for them to cross the river Jordan to take possession of 
the land of Canaan, Moses died at the age of one hundred and twenty 
years; he also, being excluded from entering the promised land in 
consequence of an oifence before Jehovah at the rock Meribah. 

So far only as supernatural agencies are introduced in the pre- 
ceding relation of the Pentateuch, can there be any justifiable ground 
to dispute the statement made. There can be no exception taken 
as to the general fact, that the Jewish nation came out of Egypt un- 
der the conduct of Moses, and that he communicated to them a law 
and polity by which they became afterwards remarkable among 
other oriental people. Indeed on the general subject, the testimony 
of Pagan antiquity is sufiiciently clear. 

The private character of Moses as exhibited in the Scripture does 



129 

not require from us any comment, it being clear that his personal 
actions are unimpeachable, on the score of disinterestedness and 
morality, as far as they are openly related in the Pentateuch. Any 
moral objection made by the deists against his official proceeding, 
under his asserted divine commission, cannot be charged to him, who 
was but an instrument in the hand of Jehovah. The objection lies 
against Jehovah who ordered the act, unless Moses was a knave and 
impostor. But this is the very question we are to determine, and 
not until our investigation is closed can any one undertake with pro- 
priety to judge that fact. But in the mean time, the reader must 
bear in mind that neither the attributes of Deity, nor the morality of 
his acts, can possibly be brought under our scrutiny, for they are 
wholly incomprehensible, as we have shown in our preceding chap- 
ters. 

The only manner by which we can fully appreciate the real char- 
acter of Moses, will be by minutely analysing the civil and religious 
system that he established among the Jewish people. I apprehend, 
by estimating its terms, its moral influence, the amount of liberty 
and happiness afforded to the nation, and the privileges, honors, 
and emoluments that may have been secured to the ruler or to the 
priesthood — we shall be enabled fully to appreciate the fact whether 
he is to be regarded as an honest man or a knavish impostor. 

Perhaps it may not be amiss to ask, what could have been Moses's 
views in representing himself a messenger divinely commissioned, 
or what could have been the view and expectation of the scribes who 
wrote out the Pentateuch, and attributed it to Moses as the founder 
of the Jewish polity? 

Can any one be found so simple as to express any doubtfulness of 
the motives by which persons act under such high pretensions? Is 
it possible to hold any other opinion than that either the individuals 
above mentioned, conscious of their divine commission, acted under 
the highest influences of moral obligation; or that, as knaves and 
impostors, they proposed the attainment of political power, or the 
gratification of their sensuality, whether as individuals, or in that of 
the order to which they belonged. 

I have thought it right to bring this simple view before the reader, 
as one that enables the mind more fixedly to apply itself to the one 
important object that he should ever keep before him in this inves- 
tigation, to wit, the ascertaining the credibility of the authors of the 
Scriptures, and which can only be accomplished by trying their in- 
tegrity and disinterestedness upon those subjects that have ever been 
17 



130 

the touchstones to human virtue or vice — to human greatness or 
weakness. 

That we may rightly comprehend the peculiarities of the Mosaic 
Institutions, we must divide our analysis into two parts, one of which 
shall exhibit the Political or Civil Constitution, and the other their 
Theological or Ecclesiastical Institutions. 

Of the importance of this proceeding there can be no doubt, for 
there has been no small injury done the Christian cause, from the 
inattention of commentators in not formally distinguishing what 
were civil ordinances, and what were religious appointments in the 
institutions of the Jewish people. 

In all other governments than the Jewish, the principles leading 
to civil enactments are founded alone in expediency, justice or utility, 
and offences against such laws, are stated in all indictments to be 
offences against the king or republic that governs under such system 
of laws. 

In addition, however, to the crime implied by a breach of civil 
law, there is in many instances, the further imputation of a theologi- 
cal offence against the God or gods whom such a community may 
worship. Thus, murder, theft, &;c., are by civil tribunals punished 
as offences against human society, but a further punishment, it is 
supposed, awaits murderers and thieves under that theory of reli- 
gion, whatever it may be, that men conscientiously regard as being 
of divine authority. Though human offences are thus subject to 
two indictments, viz. one against man, and the other against God, 
there is, generally speaking, no difficulty in determining what is the 
province of religion, and what is the province of law. 

In the Jewish theocracy, however, as depicted in the Pentateuch, 
there was but one head both to church and state, namely, Jehovah 
himself — who expressly calls the Jews his peculiar people, and whose 
civil institutions, if not actually directed by him, nevertheless, re- 
ceived his sanction. Hence, it would seem, that an ofTence against 
Jewish law, was a simple one against Jehovah, whether as king 
and ruler over the nation, or whether as a Deity, who required re- 
ligious obedience from his creatures. 

The complete solution of this subtle matter, which involves the 
actual distinction between religion and morality, is not necessary to 
our present investigation. We are enabled to ascertain from the 
Bible every thing essential to our purpose, by regarding the persons 
by whom the laws were administered among the Jewish people. A 
reference to the Scripture, will, therefore, enable us to determine 



131 

what matters were under the control of the magistrates, and what 
matters were administered by the priesthood. 

Of the Civil Administration of Law under the Mosaical Institutions. 

What system of law may have prevailed among the Jews whilst 
subjected to the Egyptians, we know not, but I presume, whatever 
it may have been, it was loosely administered by the elder and wiser 
individuals of the respective tribes, under the patriarchal form, 
guided by a plain, common sense view of equity and justice. Deem- 
ing the inquiry on this subject to be of little importance, we think it 
sufficiently confirmatory of our opinion, to state that Moses, when 
he descended to Egypt on his mission from Jehovah, is always re- 
presented as communicating with a body of rulers, or influential 
persons, who bore the appellation of Elders of Israel. See Exod. 
iv. 29., vi. 14, &;c., which last seems to be an imperfect record of 
their names. 

After the Israelites had escaped into the desert, a similar body of 
elders appear to have been in existence, though as not having any de- 
terminate powers assigned to them, they seem to have become com.- 
paratively unimportant, in consequence of the new laws communi- 
cated to the nation by Moses. 

The next view we have of Jewish polity, represents Moses sitting 
alone, the judge and arbitrator of the people, not dejure, as far as 
we can learn from Scripture, but de facto, as might naturally occur 
from the peculiar light in which he would be regarded as a lawgiver, 
divinely commissioned. Under these circumstances it is but reasona- 
ble to suppose he would be preferred to decide the various subjects 
in litigation between different parties. But however this may be, Mo- 
ses found himself overwhelmed with judicial business, and appears to 
have been unconscious how he could be relieved from the burthen 
until he received the suggestion of Jethro, his father-in-law, who 
visited Moses whilst the Jews traversed the desert of Arabia. The 
narration is very artless, and conveys such an important fact in the 
adoption of the recommendation, that we shall distinctly exhibit it 
to the reader. See Exodus xviii. 13, &c. 

"And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the 
people, and the people stood by Moses from the morning to the even- 
ning. 

And wheA Moses's father-in-law snw all that he did to the people, 
he said, what is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sit- 
test thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morn- 
ing unto even? 

And Moses said unto his father-in-law, because the people come 
unto me to inquire of God. 



132 

When they have a matter, they come unto nie, and I judge be- 
tween one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of 
God and his laws. 

And Moses's father-in-law said unto him, the thing that thou doest 
is not good. 

Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is 
with thee; for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to 
perform it thyself alone. 

Hearken now unto my voice, and I will give thee council, and God 
shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward that thou 
may est bring the causes unto God. 

And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt show 
them the way wherein they must walk, and the work they must do. 

Moreover, thou shalt provide, out of all the people, able men, such 
as fear God; men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over 
them to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fif- 
ties, and rulers of tens. 

And let them judge the people at all seasons, and it shall be, that 
every great matter they shall bring unto thee; but every small mat- 
ter they shall judge, so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall 
hear the burthen with thee," &;c. dz;c. 

With this advice of Jethro's, Moses was pleased, and brought the 
subject before the people for their acquiescence, as is stated in Deut. i. 
9, &;c., where he reminds the people of the transaction, as follows: 

"And I spake unto you at that time saying, I am not able to bear 
you myself alone. 

How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, 
and your strife? 

Take you wise men and understanding, and known among your 
tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. 

And ye answered me and said, the thing which thou hast spoken is 
good for us to do. 

So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and 
made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains 
over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and 
officers among your tribes. 

And 1 charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes 
between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man 
and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the 
small as well the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; 
for the judgment is God's, and the cause that is too hard for you, 
bring it unto me, and I will hear it. 



133 

And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should 
do." 

By this statement it will be seen, that the judges or magistrates of 
the Jewish people, as appointed under the recommendation of Moses, 
were a very numerous body. Nor does it appear, that any limit of 
jurisdiction was assigned to them, nor exception of any particular 
crimes to be reserved for the judgment of Moses or his co-adjutors. 
If the judges themselves might consider any case so complicated, 
that they could not discern its merits; then, and the inference is di- 
rect then only, did they send it up as an appeal case for the judg- 
ment of Moses, or of the superior ruler of after time. 

It would be useless for us to follow this subject into further details, 
the only particular of importance, is, that these judges were all lay- 
men, unless perhaps in the Levitical tribe, for it is most probable, 
that the judges of each tribe were selected from their own members, 
and that their jurisdiction was confined to their respective tribes. 

Having thus exhibited the very simple establishment of the judi- 
ciary power under the institution of Moses, we will now look at the 
legislative branch of government. 

Moses, as he had unintentionally engrossed the judicial power, 
appears from the same cause to which we alluded, when on that sub- 
ject, to have borne the whole burthen of directing the various mat- 
ters pertaining to the general government of the people ; and the 
weight of this charge so much oppressed him, that he complained of 
the unsupportable burthen to Jehovah, who directed him to organize 
a council of seventy persons, (perhaps seventy-two,) to assist him 
in the government. This body were also laymen, taken we pre- 
sume, from the twelve lay tribes, in the proportion of six from each. 
(Numbers xi. 16, 17.) 

This council, which was the model for the Sanhedrim of after 
times, appears to have exercised but a loose jurisdiction over the 
people whilst in the desert, and after the conquest of Canaan, ap- 
pears to have fallen into disuse, together with all the regular ma- 
chinery of government, except in such municipal regulations as par- 
ticular villages or communities, chose to appoint for themselves. 

We presume, we have sufficiently exhibited the features of the 
Jewish civil administration, so as to enable us to take some very im- 
portant views as to the fact of the political honesty or knavery of 
Moses and his associates, or of the individuals whoever they were, 
that wrote the Pentateuch, and ascribed these institutions to his ap- 
pointment. 



134 

The first matter in order before us, is, to consider the appoint- 
ment of judges or magistrates, which is distinctly implied in the 
narration to have been done through an election by the whole peo- 
ple,* at the recommendation of Moses himself. This circumstance 
is certainly utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that Moses 
was an ambitious impostor. For though he might wish to relieve 
himself from the drudgery of the judgment seat, he could not be 
ignorant of the immense importance of keeping that tribunal under 
his immediate control, or that of the hierarchy, and therefore, in- 
stead of conceding the judicial power to the nation at large, through 
the hands of laymen, selected by themselves, it would have been 
his evident policy as an ambitious impostor, to have committed it to 
a few of his own creatures, or to have assigned it to the priesthood 
exclusively. But Moses does the very contrary to this, he does not 
commission the sacerdotal tribe, neither does he nominate any of 
his friends or dependants, to the exercise of this important function, 
but desires the whole body of the people, to make the selection them- 
selves. 

Every step of this proceeding, is contrary to what any knavish 
politician ought to have adopted, and as Moses was confessedly a 
man of abilities, it is absolutely requisite for any one considering him 
an impostor, to show why he acted so directly contrary to common 
sense state policy, in thus giving up power and authority, to the 
people he governed. f 

The force of our preceding observation, is much greater against 
any theory that could suppose such a transaction to be a forgery of 
a knavish priesthood, for it would be the grossest of all hypothesis, 
to suppose, that such persons would of themselves do any thing that 
could infirm the exercise of their power or influence over the people, 
by such an institution. 

Notwithstanding the relief experienced by Moses, in the preced- 
ing abstraction of judicial business, he still complains of the bur- 
then of the government, and to remedy this matter, Jehovah is re- 
presented to have directed him to take seventy persons of the elders 

*See Deut. i. 13, 14. This is also confirmed by Deut. xvi. 18, in which the 
election or selection of judges and officers was vested in the people. 

t The Bramins acted on a very diil'erent principle than that reco2:nized by 
Moses, for in the Institutes of Menu, which are supposed by Sir Wm. Jones, 
to have been written about the same time with the Pentateuch, it is thus stated. 
"Even the decision of one priest, if more cannot be assembled, who perfectly 
knows the principles of the Vedas, must be considered as law of the highest 
authority, not the opinion of myriads who have no sacred knowledge." 

When we add to this declaration, the statement that no one but of the Bra- 
minical caste, was allowed to learn the Vedas, it will be seen that the authority 
of the priesthood was thus made absolute. 



135 

of Israel, and constitute them a great council to aid in the manage- 
ment of public affairs. 

In the declaration of Moses, that he was unable to bear the 
weightof government alone, we hear a complaint, that no monarch 
has ever made before or since, though ruling over nations vastly- 
more numerous, and with a far more perplexing system of domestic 
or foreign policy.* And this almost miracle of complaint, comes 
from a man charged with being an impostor, whose chief aim was 
the attainment of political power! 

Yet further, this supposed priestly impostor has introduced Jehoi 
vah, to inform him, in a supernatural manner, that the proper reme- 
dy was, to institute a council, not of priests, but of wise laymen to 
share the burthen. 

Where was the knavery of the Jewish priesthood when the Pen- 
tateuch was written? Who is it that can reconcile such facts, as 
have been stated, with the belief that such ordinances were forgeries 
by the priesthood, who not only omitted to intrude themselves into 
power by their forgery, but who represent Jehovah as directing Mo- 
ses to lay the care of the government upon wise laymen alone, re- 
gardless of any willingness that the priesthood might have to share 
in bearing this burthen? 

As it is a matter of essential importance to exhibit the actual 
amount of legal powers exercised by the civil magistrates among 
the Jews, as contradistinguished by those exercised by the priesthood, 
I shall extract every case and decision where reference is made in 
the Pentateuch, to these respective bodies of men. 

Of matters to be decided by Civil Judges. 
In collecting the passages of the Pentateuch in which the powers 
of the civil magistrate or priesthood are mentioned, the reader must 
be aware that such particulars are only gathered incidentally from 
occasional relations; for on the appointment of the judges of thous- 
ands, hundreds, dec, (Deut. i. 16, 17,) or where other magistrates 
were constituted, (Deut. xvi. 18, 19, 20; xxv. 1,) they were evident- 
ly empowered to decide on all civil cases whatever, and that being 
always understood, it is only by accident that the magistrates are 
mentioned in particular cases. Such passages are, therefore, very 
few; but just as far as they go, they not only confirm the view we 

* Diocletian and Charles the 5th, abdicated the sovereignty, tired out, and 
disgusted with Empire; but Moses continued in the direction of the Jewish 
nation, having divided his authority with a large council. Such an ambition, 
therefore, is unparalleled in the history of mankind, and totally inconsistent 
with any theory of imposture. 



136 

have taken, but they are of value as showing, with distinctness, the 
exclusion of the priesthood from all share in the civil administra- 
tion of the Jewish polity. 

Quoting them in the order in which they occur, they are as fol- 
lows: 

The servant refusing freedom was brought before the judges. Exo- 
dus xxi. 6. 

If a woman miscarried through the violent act of a man, the 
judges to determine the amount of damages payable. Exodus xxi. 22. 

In case goods, &c. entrusted or deposited with any one, were 
lost, stolen, &;c. the judge to determine how far he was responsible, 
Exod. xxii. 8, 9. 

Between the homicide and revenger of blood, the congregation to 
decide. By congregation, I presume, is meant the townsmen of 
that community. But in Deut. xix. 2, where the proceeding in this 
same case is mentioned, the authority is attributed to the elders of 
the city, (i. e. the magistracy.) The words are synonymous in their 
bearing on the case, and possibly may be so in technical significance. 
Num. xxxv. 12, 24, 25. 

In cases where human sagacity was unable to determine the true 
merits of the case, the judges were to bring the question before God, 
who promised a supernatural judgment. This was the consultation 
by Urim, and required the co-operation of the priesthood. We 
shall discourse on this matter presently, Deut. xvii. 8 to 13. 

In case of false witness, &c. the judge to bring the matter up to 
God by Urim — it being one of the particulars belonging to the pre- 
ceding .general rule, Deut. xix. 17, 18. 

A stubborn and disobedient son to be brought before elders at the 
gate, Deut. xxi. 18 to 21. 

The case of disputed virginity, to be tried before the elders, Deut. 
xxii. 15, 18. 

The man refusing to marry his brother's widow, to be brought be- 
fore the elders, Deut. xxv. 7, 8, 9. 

Of matters of civil polity under the jurisdiction of the priesthood. 

The only place in the Pentateuch where the priests had any par- 
ticular judgment or scrutiny, formally committed to them, other than 
in the direct exercise of their devotional functions, is in Leviticus 

xiii. xiv where they are made judges of the disease and cure of 

leprosy. 

It is, therefore, undeniable, that in the Pentateuch there is no 
matter of Jewish civil polity, /on?ia% committed to the authority of 



137 

the priesthood, but to determine the presence of leprosy in men or 
things, and when they had again become clean. This duty is very 
expressly assigned to them, and if the Jewish priests were knaves 
and impostors, they have, in our view, most unaccountably appre- 
ciated its importance, for the word priest, in the discharge of this 
duty, is reiterated no less than in sixty-nine verses of these two chap- 
ters. It would, therefore, appear, that it was not from any dislike to 
write the word priest^ that they have abstained from introducing it 
in other places, where we, of this day, would have judged it might 
have been more profitable to them. 

I leave the subject, however, to the scrutiny and wisdom of the 
deists; but, until we are enlightened by them, it would seem to me, 
that the imputed knavery and ambition of the Jewish priests, was of 
a most anomalous kind, indeed, when they retained such a power £iS 
above stated, and excluded themselves, at least in every appearance 
of things, not only from exclusive rule and dominion, but even from a 
share in the public administration of the government. 

Who then were the legislators, rulers, or judges appointed by 
Moses to preside over the Jewish people? Were they a privileged 
or noble class? Were they priests or Levites? No, they were in 
every particular, laymen, and such as the people themselves approv- 
ed or elected. Had the priesthood any thing to do with the civil 
government? Nothing, as far as we can learn from the Scripture — 
and most undeniably, the Bible contains no one precept or recom- 
mendation, by which the priesthood could directly interfere in civil 
affairs. The priests held no right by the Bible, to approve or censure 
the officers of the government, they did not even "consecrate them for 
their appointments, from the lowest to the highest. In short, from 
Moses, until after the time of any canonical writer of the Old Tes- 
tament, the administration of the government was absolutely in the 
hands of the laity alone, excepting in those instances of dubious 
power, administered by Eli and the prophet Samuel, and of which we 
shall take notice hereafter. 

Though every expression in the preceding paragraph, concerning 
the exclusion of the priesthood from any share in the administration of 
the Jewish government, is strictly correct, yet there are two pas- 
sages in the Pentateuch, which a careless reader or one anxious to 
find a flaw in my assertion, might consider to imply that the priest- 
hood might, at least, interfere in the determination of political sub- 
jects. This matter we deem of sufficient importance to re(|uire the 
trouble of removing any seeming contradiction to the conclusion we 
have alread\ made. 
1« ' 



138 

Of the passages to which I allude, tlie first is, where a reference 
is to be made in '•^hard cases^^ to the priests and Levites, (Deut. xvii. 
8th to 13th,) and which is technically termed the judgment by 
Urim and Thummim. 

"If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment., between 
blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and 
stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates, then thou 
shalt arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God 
shall choose. 

And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the 
judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show 
thee the sentence of judgment. 

And thou shalt do according to the sentence, &c. Thou shalt 
not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right 
hand nor to the left. 

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken 
unto the priest, that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy 
God, or unto i\\Q judge, even that man shall die, and thou shalt put 
away the evil from Israel." See also Deut. xix. 16, 17, 18, for a 
similar direction. 

The second passage occurs in announcing the appointment or 
consecration of Joshua, as the successor of Moses. It is there ob- 
served, (Numbers xxvii. 21,) "And he (i. e. Joshua) shall stand be- 
fore Eleazer, the priest, who shall ask council for him after the 
judgment of Urim, before the Lord; at his word shall they both go 
out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children 
of Israel with him, even all the congregation." 

These passages are very remarkable, and as seeming to confer a 
great amount of power upon the priesthood, they require a full in- 
vestigation of their purport and meaning. 

The statement made in our first reference concerning the super- 
natural judgment, promised to be given in difficult cases between in- 
dividuals, is simply this. Jehovah promised to give a miraculous 
decision in those instances when the proper judicial officers were, 
from the perplexity of the case, unable to decide. The case was to 
be first tried before the civil tribunals, and if from any perplexity of 
circumstances, the civil judges could not decide its true merits, they 
were then, in order to prevent any injustice by an ignorant decision, 
to bring the matter not to the priesthood ior their determination, but 
to Jehovah himself, who had promised a supernatural judgment on 
the case. 

As none but the priesthood could enter the sanctuary, this pro- 



139 

ceeding necessarily required the ministry of the priesthood, though 
the Bible has expressly associated the judge or civil ruler, with the 
high priest in the consultation. 

As respects the truth of the miraculous judgment to be thus given, 
it is impossible for us to produce any direct evidence to show that 
Jehovah had actually appointed such a course of proceeding; our 
only mean of estimating its truth, is to ascertain in what manner 
this commission or trust was executed. 

I know of no decision obtained by Urim, as this consultation was 
termed, on individual cases, unless in that concerning the inheritance 
of Zelopehad's daughters, and of him found gathering sticks on the 
Sabbath day. The consultations of the princes by Urim, were of a 
different nature. 

It being, then, apparently clear, that the priesthood never did, as 
far as the Bible relates things, ever attempt to arrogate any power 
to themselves in virtue of this consultation by Urim and Thummim. 
I think that we have the fairest ground to infer that it was always 
considered by them, to be distinctly a mii'aculovs judgment^ and as 
such the priesthood never appear to have interfered in the civil pro- 
ceedings of the land, by assuming any right to hold an appellate 
jurisdiction.* 

But the most conclusive argument on this subject is, the very re- 
markable fact, that the judgment by Urim had no operation on re- 
ligious matters among the Jews. On all theological particulars, the 
Scriptures made the consciences of individuals the sole judges of 
truth, and never even hints at a reference of doubtful points to the 
priesthood. Nothing can be more remarkable than the circum- 
stances detailed by Moses on the supposed case of a false prophet 
arising among the Jews, when instead of telling them to consult the 
priesthood or to ascertain by Urim whether he was a false prophet 
or not, he directs the people to await in patience until events should 
show his true character. These facts, therefore, I apprehend, are 
sufficient to prove that there could be no ecclesiastical fraud con- 
templated in the judgment by Urim, or else the priesthood would 
never have formally excepted particulars of theological importance 

*It may be proper to remark, the consultations by Urim and Tlniuiniim did 
not coiitinuc after the erection oC Solomon's Temple. Spencer thinks this 
circumstance characterises the displeasure of Jehovah, intlie liict, of the Jews 
having slighted their Theocralical government by the election of kings to 
rule over them, as is related in 1 Sam. chap. viii. For as they rel'used to 
trust in the government of God, and cliose a jnan to rule over them, so the 
Deity withdrew his supernatural assistance, and left them to the "arm of flesh," 
that they had chosen for themselves. 



140 

from the operation of an asserted supernatural judgment, that they 
might have controlled, and left such matters expressly in the power 
of the laity to decide on, as they might think right. 

The verse empowering the high priest to give council to Joshua, 
as already quoted, is in substance similar to the judgment in private 
cases of difficult determination. 

I understand by it, that, in any case where the necessity existed of 
a supernatural determination, Joshua, or any other judge or ruler, 
could procure such a judgment through the medium of the high 
priest, consulting as it is technically said by Urim and Thummim. 
That in all such cases of consultation they should rigidly abide by 
the judgment given, was simply an act of obedience to Jehovah who 
could not be slighted after the formality of asking his judgment. 

That this is the only sense in which the verse is to be understood, 
and by no means implying the least right or authority to the priest- 
hood to dictate or order any political measure, is evident from the 
whole history of the Scripture, which, in this instance, must be ad- 
mitted irrefragable testimony; for if the institutions of the Mosaic 
covenant be the work of priestly imposture, the Scripture history as 
a running practical commentary, must exhibit how the principles of 
the knavish contrivance worked on the government or the people* 

If it be evident that the institution was never used but on occa- 
sions alone required by the civil ruler as assistance to his infirmity 
of judgment, it shows distinctly that we have rightly estimated the 
nature of the institution. 

Now in every instance that we can examine in the Scripture, 
it is undeniable, that not in one single case, have the priesthood ever 
come forward, as if from Jehovah, claiming any authority to direct 
the ruler, or government, or people as to any political measure what- 
ever. But, on the contrary, every statement made, whether direct 
or indirect, exhibits the priesthood entirely under the jurisdiction of 
the civil magistrate. It, therefore, seems to follow conclusively, 
that the judgments by Urim and Thummim were not ordained for 
any selfish purpose of the priesthood, but were really founded in a 
belief that divine judgments would be given to men, unable of them- 
selves to discern the truth or the proper method by w hich they should 
accomplish their enterprises. 

However, to vindicate the explanation we have given of this mat- 
ter, we shall introduce some of those facts related in the Scripture, con- 
cerning Joshua's administration of the government, which will, I 
trust, sufficiently confirm the correctness of our view. 

The very first verse of the book of Joshua shows that the judg- 



141 

ment by Urim and Thummim was only to be used contingently un- 
der those circumstances where the ruler was called on to act and 
knew not the proper course he should pursue. For, without any in- 
tervention of the priesthood, it is explicitly stated, "the Lord spake 
unto Joshua, the son of Nun, saying, 'Moses, my servant, is dead; 
now, therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, thou and all this people, 
unto the land which I do give to them,' " &c. 

It may be said that the passage above quoted is not sufficiently 
determinate as to the fact that Jehovah directly communicated with 
Joshua, for this command might really have come through the me- 
dium of the high priest. But to this I reply, that whatever the 
fact may have been, the author of the book of Joshua has, accord- 
ing to the letter of Scripture, plainly stated that Jehovah did really 
and directly speak to Joshua without any medium of the priesthood. 
I, therefore, consider it alone reasonable to attach that meaning 
to the words in question which is their direct signification. 

The fact, however, is sufficiently illustrated by the ensuing passa- 
ges of the book of Joshua; and what is still more to the establish- 
ment of our views on the general matter of inquiry, is, the very dis- 
tinct exhibition that instead of Joshua being under any direction of 
the priesthood, he expressly directs and commands them as to what 
they shall do. 

Thus the very next passage where the priests are mentioned is in 
chapter iii. 7 and 8. There Joshua distinctly issues his commands 
to the people and the priests. 

"And the Lord said unto Joshua, this day will I begin to magnify 
thee in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that as I was with 
Moses, so will I be with thee." 

"And thou shall command the priests that bear the ark of the 
covenant, saying, when ye are come to the brink of the water of Jor- 
dan ye shall stand still in Jordan,'''' <^c. 

Again, in Joshua iv. 15, 16, 17, it is said, 

"And the Lord spoke unto Joshua saying, command the priests 
that bear the ark of the testimony, that they come up out of Jor- 
dan. Joshua, therefore, commanded the priests, saying, come ye vp 
out of Jordan^"* <S^c, 

But in the fifth chapter of Joshua it is most clear that the divine 
communication was made directly to Joshua, and without any inter- 
vention whatever, of the high priest, it being there stated unequivo- 
cally, that an angel of Jehovah appeared to him, and directed him 
how to assail Jericho. And from this communication Joshua pro- 
ceeds, in chap. vi. 6, to direct the service the priests should render. 



142 

"And Joshua, the son of Nun, called the priests, and said unto 
them take vp the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear sev- 
en trumpets before the ark of the Lord^' iSfC. 

Hence, if there is any signification in words, their import is direct 
that not only is Jehovah represented to have communicated with 
Joshua without any intervention of the priesthood, but that he, the 
civil ruler, is represented as commanding the priests what they should 
do. A statement that involves, in downright absurdity, the suppo- 
sition that any knavish contrivance has been contemplated in the ap- 
pointment of judgment by Urim and Thummim, or, that the book of 
Joshua has been written by a knavish priest; for it seems to be im- 
possible but that the direct sense of the words is what the writer of 
the book of Joshua intended they should express. If he had not this 
intention, he would not have expressed them directly opposite to 
what a knavish priesthood must have desired to represent things. 
And they surely would never have subjected themselves by an act of 
their own fraud to the rule and government of the civil magistrate. 
It will not be amiss to annex to the subjects of this chapter a few 
leading observations upon the civil government of the Jews after the 
time of Joshua, who completed the establishment of the Jewish na- 
tion in the land of Canaan, under all the appointments and institu- 
tions of Moses. 

Such a view will not only enable us to determine fully upon the non- 
influence of the priesthood in civil affairs, but it will answer the addi- 
tional purpose of exhibiting that none of the arts of king-craft can 
be charged to the biblical writers, or to the system of things distinct- 
ly advocated by them. 

After the settlement of the Jewish people in the land of Canaan, 
the Bible does not inform us that there was any general government 
established over the nation. The different tribes seem to have been 
kept together by the bond of their common descent, though they 
appear to have governed themselves rather municipally than by any 
federal system. 

That the several tribes of the Jewish nation held together by a 
very weak principle of federation, seems evident in the fact that par- 
ticular tribes were engaged in war with forei<Tn nations, while the 
other tribes were at peace. At times they also fought with each 
other as is related in the history of Jeptha. 

From the time of Joshua to that of king Saul, or a period of 
almost five hundred years, the Israelites lived under a perfect de- 
mocracy, or as it is expressed in the book of Judges, "There was no 
king in Israel in those days, and every man did that which was 
right in his own eyes." 



143 

But, during this condition of things, the Jewish people, in conse- 
quence of their idolatry and irrcligion, were punished by Jehovah in 
his permitting them to be subjugated by the Ammonites, Philistines, 
&c. From this enslaved condition they were delivered, through the 
agency of certain individuals distinguished by the title of Judges, 
who exercised a function approaching nearer to that of the Dictator 
of the early history of Rome, than any other of which we are aware. 
These Judges were of any tribe, and indeed may be considered, sim- 
ply, as persons who had become eminent by their actions in the tribe 
or nation, whether as arising from immediate providential commis- 
sions from Jehovah, or from personal merit. As such, they natu- 
rally obtained the respect and consideration of the nation, but with- 
out any formal delegation to them of power or sovereignty. A king- 
ly power was offered to Gideon and his family, but it was refused by 
him with all disinterestedness. 

Ultimately, however, the Jews insisted upon having a king to 
rule over them, that they might be like the nations round them, and 
the history of the transactions which elevated Saul to the throne 
are so remarkable, that the reader should consider them with the 
utmost attention. 

The Bible informs us that the prophet Samuel, who was by birth 
one of the singers of the Levitical body, had judged Israel, to their 
entire satisfaction, until advanced in life. At this time his two sons, 
to whom certain powers had been entrusted, abused their commis- 
sions to such a degree, that the elders of Israel, anticipating the 
further misconduct of the young men, came to Samuel, and said unto 
him, (1 Samuel, viii.) "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not 
in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said. Give us a king 
to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 

And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the 
people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, 
but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them.* 

* There is certainly somethino; lost from the text of 1 Samuel, anterior to 
the eighth chapter, which considerably affects our clear apprehension of the 
true history of this transaction. This matter, however, can be appreciated 
from after passages of this book, which explains with sufficient distinctness 
the peculiar condition of things which influenced the Jews to ask for a king, 
and for which no adequate motive i? assigned in the first five verses of the 
eighth chapter. 

We shall understand the whole subject by considering the scope of the 
speech made by Samuel to the Jews, related in chapter xii. and which 1 shall 
condense paraphrastically. In substance it is as follows: 

"And Samuel said. Behold I have hearkened unto you, and I have made a 
king over you. But it was not a king; // was Jehovah, who advanced Moses 



144 

According to all the works which they have done, since the day 
that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day, where- 
with they have forsaken nie and served other gods, so do they also 
unto thee. 

Now, therefore, hearken unto their voice; howbeit, yet protest 
solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that 
shall reign over them. 

And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that 
asked of him a king. 

And he said. This will be the manner of the king that shall reign 
over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for 
his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his 
chariots. 

And he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains 
over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his har- 
vest, and to make his instruments of war and instruments of his 
chariots. 

And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be 
cooks, and to be bakers. 

And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive- 
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 

and Aaron, who delivered your fathers from the bondage of Egypt and estab- 
lished them in this land. And when your fathers disobeyed Jehovah, he per- 
mitted them to be subdued and enslaved by Sisera, by the Philistines, Mo- 
abites," &c. 

"And again, it was Jehovah (i. e. it was not a king) who delivered you fix)m the 
subjection of your enemies; for it was Jehovah who enabled Jerrubbaal, Bedan, 
Jeptha, and myself, to deliver you, and who established you in peace once more 
in your own land." 

Now comes the particular statement which I have alluded to above, which 
explains, not only why the Israelites desired to have a king at that particular 
time, but, also, why their petition to Samuel was so oifensive. He remarks, 
in connexion with the preceding paragraph, 

"But though Jehovah has thus always protected you when you were obe- 
dient to his commands, and who has always delivered you when you repented 
of your transgressions, nevertheless, you now mistrust his almighty power 
and providence, for when Nahash and the Ammonites came up against you, 
instead of seeking deliverance from Jehovah, you have sought it through 
the instrumentality of a king, (i. e. a man,) when Jehovah himself was to be 
considered your king! 

"Now, therefore, behold your king; and, though you have substantially 
rejected that particular national providence with which Jehovah has always 
distinguished you, yet, nevertheless, he will not forsake you in your folly, nor 
your Idng either, if you will only keep his commandments in future," &c. 

"But, that you may see that you have, in truth, rejected the Creator of all 
things, by choosing a king instead of confiding in that providence that has been 
so often manifested to you, behold, it shall thunder from the heavens, although 
this be not the season for such phenomena, that you may perceive how foolish- 
ly you have acted," &c. 

A further correction is also requisite in the Scripture text concerning this 
transaction, by making the xii. chapter to precede the xi. of 1 Samuel. 



145 

And he will take the tenth of yonr seed, and of your vineyards, 
and give to his officers and to his servants. 

And he will take your men-servants, and your ma id -servants, and 
your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 

He will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants. 

And he shall cry out in that day because of your king, which ye 
shall have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 

But, notwithstanding this fearful array of consequences, the peo- 
ple persisted in having a king, which was at last bestowed upon 
them in the person of Saul. 

Our object in making the preceding extract, has been to show 
that as the Bible opposed the establishment of regal authority 
among the Jews in the most unequivocal manner, therefore, there 
can be no charge against the priests or the biblical writers, of being 
leagued with ambitious princes in any conspiracy against the liber- 
ties of the nation. If the Bible was originally written by knavish 
priests, this fact constitutes a singular anomaly in the history of the 
order; for in every other history, we see the undoubted fact ex- 
hibited of the necessity of kings and priests to unite in mutual sup- 
port. Nor has this necessity been the result of modern experience, 
but the principle is distinctly recognised in every system of ancient 
government, and is formally avowed in writings as old perhaps as 
the days of Moses.* 

As it would answer no important end to exhibit the future condi- 
tion of the Jewish monarchy, we shall here terminate our view of 
that subject, satisfied that we have sufficiently shown to every un- 
prejudiced reader, that the theory of the Jewish government, as es- 
tablished under the authority of Moses, and as it continued for near 
five hundred years afterwards, was the simplest form of democracy 
that the world has ever seen. And so far were the writers of Scrip- 
ture from being favorable to the establishment of monarchy, that it 
most unequivocally asserts that Jehovah himself protested, through 
the prophet Samuel, against the alteration of their ancient demo- 
cratrcal constitution, when the people obstinately determined to 
choose a king* 

*Thus in the Institutes of Menu (Sir Wm. Jones's Works, vol. vii.) the fol' 
lowing passages are express in their import. 

"A king, even though a child, must not be treated lighlly, iVom an idea that 
he is a mere mortal; no, he is a powerful divinity, who appears in human shape. 

"Never to recede from combat, to protect the people and to honor the priests, 
is the highest duty of kings, and insuies their felicity. 

"The miiitary class cannot prosper without the sacerdotal — nor can the 
sacerdotal be raised without the military, both cla.sses, by cardial union, an> 
exalted in this world and the next.*' 
19 



146 

It is impossible for us to go into any special analysis of the par- 
ticular laws, and various municipal regulations established under the 
authority of Moses, as such an exhibition would too largely augment 
the bulk of our Essay. The reader, curious on that subject, and 
every intellectual man ought to be so, must refer to the commenta- 
ries of Michselis and others, who have written specially on such par- 
ticulars. 

All we can do in this matter is to exhibit the leading principles 
of the laws and regulations established by Moses, so that any one 
may determine whether they be not, in every way, constituted to 
oppose the attempts of any person aiming at the subversion of the 
liberties or happiness of the people. 

According to the Mosaic economy, the following principles are 
most distinctly recognized: 

1st. That no individuals of the nation were distinguished by any 
superiority of rank or privileges, but were all regarded as alike 
equals in the eye of the law, whether as respected its promised bless- 
ings or as obnoxious to its penalties. The division of the land among 
them (Numbers xxvi. 52 a 57) must exhibit this matter clearly 
without the necessity of further references. 

2d. The whole people were required to regard each other as 
brothers, and as such, were to assist each other, without any com- 
pensation whatever, for so doing. Hence usury of every kind was 
prohibited among them, (Exod. xxii, 25, Levit. xv. 36, 37,) though 
they were unrestricted on this point in dealing with foreigners. 

3d. The greatest care was taken to prevent individuals from be- 
coming too wealthy and powerful, by the enactment of the law of 
release or restoration in the year of the Jubilee, (Levit. xxv. 13, &c., 
25, &c.,) which as it prohibited any absolute alienation of the pos- 
sessions of families, would necessarily prevent the accumulation of 
property in the hands of the wealthy and powerful. 

4th. And that every one might be fully informed of his rights and 
that of others, the laws were all made public, they were put into 
every one's hand that chose to copy them, and to cover any igno- 
rance or inability of the poor, it was made the duty of the priests to 
read them on the great septennial festivals to the people. See Deut. 
xxxi. 9 to 14. 

I have said nothing concerning the admirable equity, humanity, 
and morality that is involved in every precept and enactment of the 
Mosaical institutions, as that subject does not properly fall under the 
plan of our argumentative proceeding. We have alone attempted 
to exhibit those laws which involved the personal rights and liberties 



147 

of the people; for such laws exhibit the precise nature of the gov- 
ernment, and enables us to decide whether its administration was 
devised for the benefit of tlie people, or for tliat of tiiose who gov- 
erned thorn. 

Yet as there are so many persons entirely ignorant of all the facts 
involved in the civil government of the Jews, they cannot appreciate 
either the truth or the value of those moral features, so discernable 
to every unprejudiced student of the Mosaic writings. Though I 
cannot pretend to instruct such persons at the present time, I appeal 
to their own honesty and good sense on this subject by alone quotinfj 
those laws that regarded strangers or foreigners sojourning in 
the land of Israel. If such provision, for the interests and security of 
strangers, was made by the law of Moses^ it must be deemed, surely, 
a sufficient guarantee that the welfare and happiness of their own citi- 
zens was not less sedulously regarded.*' 

It is a great disadvantage to our argument, that a complete ex- 
hibition and analysis of the institutions of Moses requires too long 
a discourse for the scope of our present investigation. Such a view 
would more completely demonstrate the absolute democracy of the 
legislation, and which conviction would abundantly prove that nei- 
ther Moses nor his associates were governed by selfish or ambitious 
views. For when he had the opportunity to construct a new gov- 
ernment, and actually possessed the power and influence to establish 
one characterized by such singular features, it must be evident that 
if he was an impostor, he would have established an arbitrary form 
of government, and not a democracy.f And upon this subject he 

* "Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger as for one of 
your own country, for I am the Lord your God. Exodus xii. 49; Levit. xxiv. 22. 

"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him; for ye were strangers 
in the land of Egypt. Exodus xxii. 21; xxiii. 9. 

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 

"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born 
among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in tire 
land of Egypt, kc. Levit. xix. 3.*?, :}4. 

"One law and one manner shall be for you and for the stranger that sojour- 
neth with you." Numbers xv. 14, 15, 16. 

We could add many other similar passages, but it is presumed the above will 
be sufficient. 

t The observation that Hume has made in his .speculation upon the ultimate 
condition of the British Government, {Essay v.) is equally applicable to all 
other human governments. He there observes, "If any single person acquire 
power enough to take our constitution to pieces, and put it up anew, he is real- 
ly an absolute monarch; and we have already had an instance of this kind, 
sufficient to convince us that such a person will never resign his power or estab- 
lish any froc government.'" 

This observation is sufficiently striking, and in the fact that Moses had this 
power, and did establish a free government, we have an instance of political 
virtue that the world cannot parallel. 



148 

could neither want information nor encouragement, he himself hav- 
ing been brought up in Pharaoh's court until he was forty years of 
age, and the Jewish people, on their part, being ignorant of any 
other than a monarchical government, strengthened and vindicated 
by a powerful ecclesiastical establishment. 

But, notwithstanding every disadvantage that we have to submit 
to on this subject, we have established, I trust, a sufficient number 
of facts that render the Mosaical institutions, thus far altogether free 
from any imputation of imposture, whether by the hands of civihans 
or ecclesiastics. 

For no knavish politician would desire to constitute a people, with- 
out government, into a democracy; he would evidently aim at a mon- 
archy. 

And no knavish priest would exclude himself or his order from 
all participation in the management of government. History in- 
forms us of nothing more frequently attempted by the clergy 
than to attain political power; and if this be the fact as appli- 
cable to the order through the mere weakness and infirmity of 
human nature, how preposterous must it be to suppose that the Jew- 
ish priests, if knaves and impostors, should distinctly and formally 
exclude themselves from the exercise of political power by their 
own deliberate acts. 

The Jewish civil institutions, therefore, as promulgated by Moses, 
are entirely free from all imputation of selfishness or imposture, 
whether his character, or that of his confidential associates be as- 
sailed. And not only is the character of Moses and his coadjutors 
vindicated by our scrutiny, but it claims the admission of honesty 
and integrity to all those who administered the same establishment 
in after times, so far as the Scripture writings are concerned; for it 
is our present copies that we have analysed, and foimd free from all 
imputation of being the work of dishonest or unjust men. 

As the term democracy as applied by me in the preceding pages 
of this chapter to the Jewish state may be misunderstood and may 
be misapplied, in order to prevent any such perversion, I beg leave 
to make the following comment. 

In terming the constitution of the Jewish people a democracy, 
it is strictly so if the Pentateuch be, according to infidel notions, a 
human fabrication. But if that book be of divine dictation, as we 
contend, then the Jewish government was a theocracy, i. e. under 
the government of the Deity, for he gave his sanction to the laws 
of Moses, and forbade any thing to be added to, or diminished from 
jThat code, and assumed a providential direction of their national af- 



149 

fairs. Hence the Jewish government was one sui generis, and un- 
like any other. 

The commendation of the Scripture is not given to any one form 
of government more than another. It only tacitly requires that 
every form shall be administered with justice and philanthropy, or 
as may be summed up in one phrase, ivith uprightness both in the 
sight of God and man, 



CHAPTER VII. 

ON THE CHARACTER OF MOSES AND THE PRIESTHOOD, AS IMPLICA- 
TED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE JEWISH 
NATION. 

It was the theory of the Jewish church, that Jehovah, in an espe- 
cial manner, was to be regarded as being present at their appointed 
place of worship, and that there he was to be sought by men for par- 
don, or for blessings, through repentance, prayer, and sacrifice. 
But as Jehovah did not see fit to communicate directly with individ- 
uals, approaching the sanctuary in their religious services, he or- 
dained the rites and ceremonies of his worship, to be administered 
through the agency of a priesthood, who were thus represented to 
stand as mediators for men with the Deity, when they penitently ac- 
knowledged their transgressions against his commandments. 

As to the reasonableness of such a scheme, it must be evident we 
can determine nothing, because it avowedly proceeds from God, whose 
purposes or attributes we have, in our former pages, proved to be alto- 
gether incomprehensible, and therefore inscrutable. Whether we 
shall believe or reject the asserted divine constitution of the Jewish 
church, therefore, depends alone upon the clear establishment of the 
integrity or knavery of the human beings, concerned in promulga- 
ting or in administering the system among men. Upon this matter 
we can determine with just judgment, though we cannot speculate 
upon the nature, attributes, and purposes of God, for of them we have 
no real or absolute knowledge. 

If the religious doctrines announced in the Pentateuch be of divine 
institution, it is an essential particular connected with them, that 
there should be a body of priests to administer them according to 
its particular appointments. Hence, there is a necessity, that not 
only all matters pertaining to their ecclesiastical function, should be 
distinctly expressed in the Scriptures, but also, whatever might re- 
late to their necessities as human beings, subject to the common in- 
firmities of human nature. Shelter, food, and raiment, must be pro- 
vided for them, somehow, or they cease to be human beings. The 
Deity did not relieve the Jewish priesthood either from spiritual or 
bodily infirmity; as such, they are always considered in the Scrip- 
tures, and consistently therewith, they must live and be supported 
like other men. 



151 

This simple exposition, however self-evident it may seem to many 
persons, is by no means unimportant. The habitual mistrust of 
most persons sceptically inclined, is so great upon every matter con- 
nected with the establishment of the Jewish priesthood, that it is 
necessary continually to make an appeal to common sense, that such 
persons, when of candid tempers, may recollect themselves a little, 
and not assume as sound objections matters that are in themselves 
ridiculous. Thus every provision made for the necessities of the 
Jewish priesthood, has been, by some persons, set down as prima 
facie evidence against their integrity, and their advocates have been 
called upon to vindicate them from the charge of fraud and impos- 
ture, because they required food, raiment, and houses to live in. 
Surely nothing can be more absurd than such objections. 

But with every admission ofthe human necessitiesof the priesthood, 
the subject of their provisionary establishment must be subjected to 
the strictest scrutiny; for the mode, the kind, and the extent of their 
temporal appointments, certainly constitutes one of the most impor- 
tant means by which their true character can be most accurately 
discerned. All that we require, is, that the mere fact of provision 
having been made for the support of the priesthood, as human be- 
ings, shall not be considered an objection requiring us to vindicate 
them from a charge of knavery and imposture. 

In the selection of the tribe of Levi, as the administrators of 
sacred things in the economy of the Jewish people, no motive has 
been assigned why that tribe was chosen rather than any other tribe. 
There is no reason to suppose that the tribe of Levi had been espe- 
cially engaged in religious services, prior to the exodus. The 
Bible does not inform us that they were in any particular better than 
their brethren, nor was there any political importance in the tribe, 
it being the very smallest of the whole nation. We, therefore, can 
see no reason, either in a moral or political point of view, why they 
were selected for ecclesiastical purposes. But so it was, Jehovah or- 
dered this tribe to be set apart for religious services, under an ordin- 
ance that they should be to him a sanctified body, in lieu ofthe first 
born of the whole Jewish people; as is stated in Numbers iii. 12, IJ?. 

Out of the body of Levites, the family of Aaron was selected to 
perform the particular function of priests, for no apparent reason 
that we can discern, and certainly from nothing stated in the Scrip- 
tures as to their greater piety or excellence. Indeed, so far is the 
Bible from attributing to them any thing of tiiat kind, that it relates 
that Aaron himself, his sons of mature age, together with the whole 
body of priests and Levites of the first consecration, died in the de- 



152 

serts for their sins, as did all other individuals of the nation with the 
exception of two persons. In consequence of the many transgres- 
sions of the Jews, it was expressly denounced by God that none ot 
those individuals over twenty years of age, that came out of Egypt 
with Moses, should enter the promised land, except Joshua and Caleb, 
who were both laymen; see Num. xxvi. 63, 64, 65. 

As the Jewish nation were very remarkable in their ecclesiastical 
appointments, and as their religious system has ever been considered 
by the deists, as the essence of the imposture instituted by Moses 
and Aaron, it may be naturally anticipated that if those two individ- 
uals, or their successors, were knaves and impostors, we shall most 
likely find selfish and artful enactments, promulgated in the con- 
struction of their ecclesiastical establishment. And as the very sup- 
position of imposture implies selfishness, it will be impossible for us 
to consider them to have been knaves and rogues, if we find this 
portion of the Mosaic institutions, absolutely free from any liability 
to such an imputation. 

It must be evident to every one, whether Christian or deist, that 
the real views and motives of a knavish priesthood, may have been 
concealed or disguised, while they promulgated every other part of 
the Jewish dispensation. But it is impossible, when they treat on 
their own personal honor and subsistence, if they were impostors, 
but that they should secure, or attempt to secure, as great an amount 
of power, wealth, and influence, as they could conveniently grasp. 
In this manner have all the priests of Paganism acted, and in this 
manner have all the priests of corrupted Judaism or Christianity 
proceeded, so that we have an uniformity of conduct in the proceed- 
ings of either impostors or irreligious priests, that renders it almost 
impossible we can err in appreciating the character of those priests, 
who have acted directly contrary to the otherwise universal mode of 
proceeding. 

Regulating the course of our investigation by these principles, we 
shall forbear to make any exposition of the various sacrifices, rites, 
and ceremonies, pertaining to the mere priestly functions, but shall, 
for evident reasons, confine ourselves to those particulars that con- 
cerned the priesthood, personally, as contradistinguished from the 
laity. 

That we may fully investigate this subject, we shall scrutinize it 
according to the three following divisions: 

1. Of the subsistence of the Jewish priesthood. 

2. Of their dignities, honors, and privileges. 

3. Of their influence in the nation, or rather the amount of uiflu- 
once they were entitled to claim from the Pentateuch. 



153 

In the first place. The provision made for the subsistence of the 
Levitical tribe and priesthood, was, that the lay tribes should, from 
the spoils of the subjugated Canaanites, give them certain villages 
for a residence, and annually a tenth, or tithe, of their individual 
yearly produce, together with certain portions of the animals sacri- 
ficed to Jehovah. 

Now, to make a naked statement such as this, and as the deists 
have always done, and then pass over the subject without any exami- 
nation or honest commentary, is not only a suppresio veri, but it is 
maliciously to represent one of the most remarkable evidences of 
the divine constitution of the Jewish Church, as if it were the sor- 
did contrivance of an interested priesthood. 

Let us, then, make an honest exhibition of this matter. When 
the conquered land of Canaan was divided among the people of the 
several Jewish tribes, the tribe of Levi, or whole ecclesiastical body, 
by the command of Jehovah, were expressly forbidden to receive 
any portion of that land beyond the habitations which were allotted 
to them in the territories given to the other tribes. And so for- 
mally was this prohibitory commandment of Jehovah made, that it 
is, in its enactment and reiteration, repeated no less than nine times 
in the Scripture relation, before the actual division of the land was 
completed by Joshua.* 

Now, by all principles of human equity, the tribe of Levi was as 
fairly entitled to a portion of the land as any other of the tribes. 
And if their portion in equity was merged and divided among the 
other tribes, nothing could be more reasonable than that the lay 
tribes should give them something equivalent. The tithe, there- 
fore, was but an equivalent given by the people to the priesthood, 
for the use and possession of that portion of the land to which the 
Levitical tribe was entitled in equity. 

But what ideas of common sense, much less of policy, could the 
framers of such a system have possessed, if they were knaves and 
impostors, whose aim was to domineer over the laity, and riot on the 
product of their labors. What imaginable perversion of reason 
could it have been, that induced ecclesiastical knaves and impostors, 
by acts asserted to be under divine sanction, obligatory on them- 
selves and their successors, to renounce forever their equitable claim 
to a portion of the land, and to trust, for the future subsistence of 
themselves and their families, only to the religious regaixl and good 

* Numbers xviii. 20, also 24; Deut. x. 9; xii. 12; xiv. 27, 29; xviii. 
1, 2. Joshua xiii. 14, 33; xiv. 3; xviii. 7. 

20 



154 

will of a lay population. For, be it known, this supposed knavish 
priesthood have omitted to introduce, any where throughout the 
whole Bible, a single law, penalty, or denunciation, against any one 
that did not pay their tithes. The whole amount of precept and 
recommendation to the laity on this subject, throughout the whole 
Bible, is contained in the two following verses, unsupported by any 
sanction whatever. 

"Take heed to thyself, that thou forsake not the Levite, as long 
as thou livest upon the earth." (Deut. xii. 19.) 

"And the Levite that is within thy gates, thou shalt not forsake 
him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee." (Deut. xiv. 27.) 

Now, can any one, in the possession of his senses, say there could 
be any fraud contemplated in the tithe system of the Jewish priest- 
hood? Is it not, in every particular, directly contrary to every 
maxim of worldly prudence and wisdom? Had Moses and Aaron 
been impostors, surely their evident policy would have been to exalt 
the Levitical tribe, and make them entirely independent of the laity, 
in the enjoyment of substantial possessions. Such a proceeding 
would naturally have been agreeable to the Levites, and would have 
enabled Moses and Aaron to have anticipated a strong esprit du 
corps, so essentially important to their remarkable government, had 
it been founded in fraud and imposture. On the contrary, Moses 
expressly denies to them every thing substantial, to which they 
were actually entitled in all equity, and, under the avowed sanction 
of Jehovah, ordains that the Levitical tribe should be for ever de- 
pendant for the necessaries of life, not upon him, or the govern- 
ment, but upon the good opinion of the laity alone in their individual 
consciences. By such an act, Moses disclaimed, both for him- 
self and any future executive officer, any exertion of undue influence 
upon a body of itien, whom he might have otherwise cherished into 
a strong body of self-interested partizans. 

Now, the prohibition of the Levites from the accumulation and en- 
joyment of temporal possessions, and making them for ever dependant 
upon the people at large for all the means of their subsistence, could 
not, under any possible view of the case, have been either gratifying 
to the Levites, or recommendatory of Moses and Aaron in their sight. 
And yet, as if the policy of these lawgivers was not sufficiently op- 
posite to all our notions of worldly prudence and sagacity, it was 
enacted, (Numb, xviii. 26, 28,&;c.) that one part of the subsistence 
of the actual priesthood should be derived from a tithe, to be con- 
tributed by the Levites!* 

* "All government," observes Hume, very justly, {Essay on the First Princi- 



155 

Truly, the Levites that sustained Moses and Aaron in the con- 
struction of the Jewish government, were an incomprehensible 
body of impostors, not only in supporting such a system originally, 
but in never having interpolated better things for themselves, in an 
after age. This is one proof, at least, that our copies of the Penta- 
teuch do not differ substantially from the original writings. 

We proceed, now, to the consideration of our second division, that 
proposed to scrutinize the dignities, honors, and privileges, possess- 
ed by the Jewish priesthood, as appointed by Moses. 

This subject, in its affirmative position, is very soon expressed; 
for in no part of the Bible is it stated that the priesthood were enti 
tied to any dignity or honor whatsoever, unless in the orders estab- 
lished among themselves, as to their particular functions and re- 
ligious duties. But, as contradistinguished from the laity, they en- 
joyed neither distinction nor privilege, as recognized by any enact- 
ment of the Scriptures. 

And, finally, to speak of our third division, concerning the amount 
of influence they were entitled to claim by the Pentateuch. — We shall, 
as briefly as in the preceding instance, dispose of this subject. Not 
only is the Scripture entirely silent as to any direct or implied 
right, by which the priesthood could interfere with civil affairs, 
but it most distinctly exhibits them to have been altogether subor- 
dinate to the civil magistrate. And the relation of their future his- 
tory, abundantly distinguishes them in the universal history of priest- 
craft, by the fact of never having even attempted to arrogate to 
themselves any civil authority, whether as individuals, or in a com- 
bination of the order. 

Although we have exhibited an astonishing amount of testimony, 
in favor of the disinterestedness and religious integrity of the foun- 
ders of the Jewish church, and their assistant priesthood, yet I fear 
the facts stated will not be appreciated in their inestimable value, 
unless the reader be well acquainted with the general history of Pa- 
ganism, the corruptions that have been introduced into Christianity, 
and at the same time, has a digested view of the numerous particu- 
lars pertaining to the Jewish ecclesiastical institutions. And how 
few persons are there in Christendom that are thus qualified? 

pics of Government,) "is founded only on opinion; and this maxim extends to 
the most despotic and most military 2;overnments, as well as to the most (roe 
and most popular. The Soldan oi' E«ypt, or the Emperor of Rome, mii:;ht 
drive his harmleas subjects, like brute beasts, a2,"ainst their sentiments and in- 
clination. But he must, at least, have led his inanialukes or prcetorian bandu, 
like men, by their opinion.*' 

Let us ask, what was it that e^ave Moses his controliinc; influence over the 
minds of the Levitical tribe? Their opinion, at least, cannot be traced, like 
that of tl)e mamalukes or praetorian soldiers, to any worldly or tcmj)oral interest? 



156 

Therefore, in order to make a more distinct exhibition of the im- 
portant testimony we have already produced, I deem it proper to 
urge this subject more directly to the understanding of every honest 
sceptic, by enumerating certain important legal enactments which 
the Jewish priesthood have foreborne to make, as contrasted with 
what common sense should have dictated to them, had they been 
knaves and impostors. 

As respects the tithe system of the Jewish economy, we have al- 
ready shown how utterly inconsistent it was that knaves and impos- 
tors should have debarred themselves the privilege of holding real 
estate, and make themselves absolutely dependant upon the laity for 
their actual subsistence. 

But this simple fact is not the only evidence we can bring for- 
ward on this point, for every portion of Jewish ecclesiastical history, 
in its long continuance, gives intensity to our argument, in the fact 
that neither in the Pentateuch, nor in any other book of Scripture, 
is there a passage which contains any law or denunciation against 
those persons that might refuse or neglect to pay their tithes. 

Nor in any of the numerous recorded judgments of God upon the 
Jewish nation, is it ever insinuated that the non-payment of tithes 
was one of the sins of that people. 

And to show conclusively how little the subject employed the thoughts 
of the composers or compilers of the biblical writings, the word tithes 
is not mentioned in the Scripture after the establishment of the Jews in 
Canaan, B. C. 1602, until the reign of Hezekiah, B. C. 725, or du- 
ring a period of above eight hundred years, and then only as a par- 
ticular incident in a general narration. From that time unto the 
conclusion of the Old Testament writings, the subject is not men- 
tioned until after the return from the Babylonian captivity, B.C. 444, 
when, in the restoration of the Jewish people, it became necessary 
to speak to them concerning this institution of their peculiar econo- 
my, and to censure them for not having performed their duty in that 
particular. But, at the same time be it remembered, the priests are 
severely censured for their misconduct. 3Ialachi,u. 1 to 4,7 to 10. 

Not only have the Jewish priesthood divested themselves of any 
right to interfere in the political institutions of their country; not 
only have they omitted to state that they were entitled to honor and 
dignity in virtue of their ecclesiastical functions, but by an equally 
extraordinary omission, they have not claimed for their order the 
least privilege by the laws, or the least immunity from the laws. 

Thus, for instance, the persons of the priesthood are not protect- 
ed by a single law or denunciation; nor is there any provision what- 



157 

ever made against the possibility of any one treating them contume- 
liously, or wounding, or even killing them. The only protection 
they had was the common law of the land, but which made no dis- 
tinction whatever between an offence or injury offered to a priest, or 
to the meanest commoner of the nation.* 

And highly as the privilege of affording asylum to criminals, or 
penitents, has been valued by other priesthoods, it was prohibited to 
those of the Jews. Under the avowed authority of Jehovah it was 
enacted, that the murderer should be delivered to the magistrate to 
be put to death, though he might have laid hold of the very projec- 
tions of the altar. 

Nor must I, by any means, omit to state, that though the laity 
might regard the Jewish priests with reverence in virtue of their 
sacred functions; yet by every principle characterizing the obliga- 
tions of the Mosaic economy, they were debarred from exerting any 
undue moral influence over the religiously inclined laity, by the in- 
troduction of special enactments of the most singular import, and 
which nothing but the very essence of folly, can suppose ever emanated 
from an imposture of priestly contrivance. 

This matter will be sufficiently evident in the following exposi- 
tion, thus: 

In the first place, the priesthood had no esoteric doctrine; that is, 
they had no doctrine concealed from the people at large, and which 
alone was to be communicated to devotees or others initiated into any 
particular society of believers. Whatever the doctrine was, it was 
proclaimed to the whole nation without any reservation whatever; 
nay, it was made the duty of the priesthood, that they should read 
all the law pubHcly to the people in the year of the release, under the 
following circumstances: 

'•''Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and 

^ * How much more careful of themselves the Biamins of India were at this 
very same chronological epoch, let the following extracts declare: 

"He who says hush, or pish, to a Bramin, or thou to a superior, must imme- 
diately bathe, eat nothing for the rest of the day, and appease him by clasping 
his feet with respectful salutation. 

"For striking a Bramin even with a blade of grass, or tying him by the neck 
with a cloth, or overpowering him in argument, and addding contemptuous 
words, the offender must soothe him by falling prostrate. 

"An assaulter of a Bramin, with intent to kill, shall remain in hell a hundred 
years; for actually striking him, with the like intention, a thousand. 

"As many small pellets of dust as the blood of a Bramin collects on the 
ground, for so many thousand years must the shedder of that blood be torment- 
ed in hell, 

"No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Bramin, and the king, 
therefore, must not even form in his mind an idea of killing a priest," Insti- 
tutes of Menu, Sir W. Jones's Works, vii. 



15H 

thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear^ and that 
they may learn and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all 
the words of his law. 

And that their children, which have not known any thing, may 
hear and learn.'^'' Deut. xxxi. 9 fo 14. 

In the next place, the law itself was declared, by Moses, to be so 
plain and simple that it required no interpretation whatever.* This 
extraordinary annunciation, the direct contrary to what knavish 
priests have ever permitted, much less ever desired to establish as a 
divine appointment, is recorded in Deut. xxx. 11 to 14, and is the 
conclusion of Moses's address to the people, urging their faithful 
obedience to the whole law. 

"For this commandment that I command thee this day, it is not 
hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 

It is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for us 
to heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it? 

Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, who shall go 
over the sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear and do it? 
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart, that thou mayest do it. 

See I have set before you, this day, life and good, and death and 
evil." 

This exhortation of Moses, therefore, as being addressed to the 
whole nation then assembled before him, when put into the idiom of 
our own language is this: The law which has thus been proclaimed to 
you is so very plain and simple in all its terms and enactments, that 
every one among you can comprehend its obligations. It is not a 
law that requires any one different or superior to yourselves to come 
and explain it; but every individual (of sufficient age) can under- 
stand it for yourselves. And in your individual obedience or diso- 
bedience you shall be judged either for good or evil, for life or death. 
And, consistently with this annunciation, the case is not even sup- 
posed in the Pentateuch, that any one could be at a loss concerning 
the purport of the Jewish religious ordinances. Hence there is no 
direction to the people to seek instruction from the priesthood, nei- 
ther is any authority whatever given to the priesthood in a single 
passage of the Scripture, empowering them to determine cases of 

* The Bramins not only absolutely prohibited the common people from read- 
ins: the Vedas, but even those who were permitted could not peruse the volume 
without their express permission. Thus it is said in the Institutes of JVlenu: 
"He who shall acquire knowledg-e of the Veda without the assent of his pre- 
ceptor, incurs tlie guilt of stealing the Scripture, and shall sink to the region 
of torment." 



159 

conscience, or points of religious doctrine. This is a very remarka- 
ble matter to ponder on, for provision was made by Jehovah for a 
supernatural judgment, by Urim, in civil trials, when the particular 
merits of the case could not be discerned by human sagacity. The 
inference on this point, therefore, is important beyond estimate; for 
it is utterly absurd and incredible, that ecclesiastical knaves and im- 
postors, should have recognized the supernatural judgment of God 
on civil cases of difficult solution, and yet should exclude the neces- 
sity of bringing matters of religion before such a tribunal, on the 
distinct plea that the laity at large could judge of them in every 
particular.* 

Now, it is impossible for a deist or sceptic to urge that I have 
insisted too strenuously upon this particular fact; for, very fortu- 
nately, we have a case in point, so positive, that it is absolutely im- 
possible to reduce the value of my exposition. 
This case is in Deut, xviii. 20, 21, 22. 

"But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my 
name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall 
speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 

And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which 
the Lord hath not spoken? 

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing 
follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath 
not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt 
not be afraid of him.^^ 

Here, then, is a case supposed, and direction given concerning 
it; and though the offence be the very highest degree of religious 
obliquity, yet the priesthood had no cognizance of the matter, but 
it was entirely referred to the judgment of the laity, who were to 
decide by the event. There was no consultation of Urim to be 
made, but they were to await, patiently, the consummation of the 
particular case, in order to see whether Jehovah had spoken to 
them or not. My observation, of course, is only applied to the 
Y>rop\\et speaking presumptuously in the name of Jehovah; for the 
prophet who spoke in the name of another God, was, in that very 
fact, to be put to death, though he might actually exhibit signs and 

* And yet the theory of teaching the people to regard the judgment of the 
priesthood is recognized in the Scriptures distinctly in certain particulars; for 
in Deut. xxiv. 8, it is expressly said on the subject of the leprosy: '* Taffe heed 
that thou observe diligently and do accordins; io all that the priests shall teach you.''* 
Now here is a positive command given upon this indifferent matter, and yet the 
Scripture does not in a single passage direct or instruct the people to look to 
the priesthood for any doctrinal exposition whatever. 



160 

wonders; see Deut. xiii. 1, 2, 3; and the reason there assigned why 
Jehovah would permit so deluding an exhibition to be made. 

I also add, as a further evidence of the inability of the Jewish 
priesthood to exert any improper influence on the minds of the religious 
laity, that they held no power nor authority to pronounce absolution, 
whether for the nation at large, or for individuals. The consciences 
of the penitent were the only sources of that consolation. If they 
had honestly and humbly performed what the law of God required 
for the expiation of their sins, they knew the faithfulness of Jeho- 
vah, in his promise, to be sufficient, without any confirmation of 
the truth by the priesthood. 

To further establish the religious integrity of the founders of the 
Jewish church, we have yet another argument to insist upon, based 
on the extreme minuteness and particularity of the observances of 
the Jewish institutions, and which, nevertheless, are totally silent 
upon all those particulars which would be so much sought after by 
knavish, designing priests. The deductions are too important to be 
omitted by us, though we do not carry them out to the length they 
deserve, for want, of room. I shall throw them into three distinct 
sections, and the reader will appreciate, at a glance, the evident na- 
ture of the distinctions. 

Sundry quotations of enactments, made by Moses, for the protec- 
tion of foreigners, servants, widows, and orphans: 

Thou shalt not vex nor oppress a strange?', nor widow, nor father- 
less child; for if they cry at all unto me, (i. e. to God,) I will sure- 
ly hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you 
with the sword, and your wives shall be widows, and your children 
fatherless. Exod. xxii. 21, 24; xxiii. 9: Levit. xix. 33, 34. 

If a man smite out the eye or the tooth of a servant, they shall 
be made free for the suffering of that injury. Exod. xxi. 26, 27. 

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant, that is poor and needy, 
whether he be of thy brethren, or of the strangers that are in thy 
land, within thy gates. At his day thou shalt give him his hire, 
neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor, and setteth 
his heart upon it, lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it he 
sin unto thee. Deut. xxiv. 13, 14: Levit. xix. 13. 

And yet, notwithstanding the remarkable minuteness of the above 
enactments, and of numerous others that we might bring forward, 
there is not a single passage in the Scripture that denounces a man 
for not paying his tithes to the priesthood; for striking out their 
eyes or teeth, or for any other injury, direct or indirect, to which 
they might be liable. 



161 

Truly, the Jewish priesthood, if impostors, were incomprehen- 
sible in their scheme; for it is utterly inconceivable how they could 
make the above enactments, or the reiterations of protection to 
strangers, quoted on page 147, and never promulgate the least legal 
immunity or privilege for themselves. 

Sundry enactments requiring honor, deference, and respect, to be 
paid to certain individuals: 

Ye shall fear every man, his mother, and his father. (Levit. xix. 3.) 
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before 
the blind. (Levit. xix. 14.) 

Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of 
the old man. (Levit. xix. 32.) 

And yet, it is no where enjoined in the Scripture, that any formal 
reverence, honor, or respect, whatever, was due to the priesthood; 
nay, even though there is an enactment that a man should not curse 
the magistrates or civil ruler, (Exod. xxii. 28,) yet maledictions 
are not formally prohibited to be used against the priesthood, sen- 
sitive as one would suppose ecclesiastical impostors might be on 
such a point. 

In the third place; I shall close this argument with the enume- 
ration of sundry enactments of apparently trivial matters, to some 
of which the highest grade of punishments were annexed; and let 
the reader ask himself the question, how it could be possible that 
impostors and knaves (for as such the Jewish priesthood are regard- 
ed by the deists) could be so exceedingly particular and minute in 
their legislation, and yet forbear to introduce one single law that 
should bring power, reverence, or wealth, to their order? 

Whoever compoundeth an oil like the consecrated oil of Aaron, 
&c., shall be cut off from his people. (Exod. xxx. 33, 38.) 

Whosoever should eat fat or blood, to be cut off from his people. 
(Levit. vii. 25, 27.) 

The man that gathered sticks on Sabbath put to death. (Numb. 
XV. 32 to 37.) 

Thou shalt not sow a field with mingled seed, neither shall a gar- 
ment of mixed wool and linen come upon thee. (Levit. xix. 19.) 

Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. (Ueut. 
xxii. 10.) 

The two sexes forbidden to wear each other's clothes. (Deut. 
xxii. 5.) 

Thou shalt not lake the bird and its young together, cV:c. (Deut. 
xxii. 6.) To this commandment has been added, either intentionally 
21 



162 

or accidentally, the promiae, that they who observed this precept, 
should prolong their days. 

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither ehalt thou 
mar the corners of thy beard. (Levit. xix. 27.) 

Ye shall put fringes, and ribbons upon your garments. (Numb. 
XV. 38, 39.) 

Now is it not utterly incredible, that the official agents by whom 
so many particular enactments have been made, and so many of them 
apparently on trivial matters, — who have recorded either the enact- 
ment, or its reiteration, nine several times, prohibiting them from 
holding real estate, — is it not incredible that such persons could 
have been knaves and impostors, when they have not promulgated 
a single law that decrees them honor, wealth, immunity, or power! 
Who further made themselves dependent on the religious conscience 
of the laity for their subsistence, and whose special interest in its 
payment, was only urged under the sanctionless exhortation, but 
twice recorded in the Bible, *^Take care that thou forget not the 
Levite." 

The characters of Moses and the priesthood, therefore, as impli- 
cated in the promulgation of the Pentateuch, must be considered 
wholly free from any suspicion of knavery and imposture, for in 
every particular, whether as magistrates or ecclesiastics, they have 
omitted to introduce any appointment, law, or precept, by which 
they could procure power, wealth, or temporal influence. Now as 
the enjoyment of such particulars, constitute the sole end and object 
of fraud and imposture, as it is for such things alone that men in 
every age have become either hypocrites or impostors, so it is ut- 
terly incredible and absurd that the promulgators of the Jewish 
economy could have been such persons. It is most undeniable that 
every law proclaimed by them, is not only free from any suspicion 
of interested selfishness, but is indeed diametrically opposed to the 
very principle of any selfish scheme or contrivance, whatever.* 

Anomalous and irreconcilable as all the enactments of the Pen- 
tateuch are, to the supposition of an ecclesiastical imposture, they 

* From the statements we have now made, the reader can appreciate the ac- 
curacy, or the honesty, of the speculations of Lord Shaftsbury, Bolingbroke, 
&c. on the Scripture writings. 

Lord Shaftsbury says, "that the holy records themselves, were no other than 
the pure invention and artificial compilement of an interested party, in behalf 
of the richest corporation and most profitable monopoly, which could be erect- 
ed in the world." 

Lord Bolingbroke has said, "the truth is, that ignorance and superstition, 
pride, injustice, and barbarity, were the peculiar characteristics of the Jewish 
people. The principles of their religion formed them to every part of this 
character." — Bolingbroke's Letter on Tillotson's Sermons. 



163 

are, in all their singular omissions of matters concerning the temporal 
interests of the priesthood, harmonious witli the simple theory of 
the Jewish or Christian religion, and have been framed with con- 
summate knowledge of the infirmity of human nature, to prevent, to 
the utmost, any accidental abuse of ecclesiastical influence. 

The whole theory and scope of our religious system, is, that man 
as a free agent, is undergoing probation or discipline before Jehovah 
himself, and therefore, as a free agent, and as an intellectual and 
moral being, is responsible to Jehovah alone for the acts of his life, 
his thoughts, conversation, and every other particular involved in his 
moral existence. To compel mankind, as it were, to exercise them- 
selves individually in their probationary state, the utmost care seems 
to have been taken by Moses, as the messenger of Jehovah, to con- 
fine the priesthood to their typical function of merely offering the 
appointed sacrifices within the limits of the sanctuary. Out of this 
their peculiar function, we meet either with no enactment concern- 
ing them, or those that would diametrically oppose them, did they 
presume to interfere in any of those matters that involved the free 
agency of the laity. 

As simple citizens, there was nothing to forbid the priesthood, 
when competent, to enlighten the understanding of laymen; but every 
precaution was taken that they should not control the consciences of 
the laity, by any implied divine authority. And so effectual were 
these institutions of Moses in their operation, that there is no record 
of the Jewish priesthood having ever attempted such an influence. 
The corruption of doctrine that ultimately prevailed in the Jewish 
church, arose from the laity themselves. The scribes and the 
Pharisees alone have borne the censures of our Saviour. 

The extraordinary appearance of disregard, concerning the inter- 
ests of a body of men consecrated to the service of Jehovah, by his 
own ordinance, may possibly induce some persons to consider that 
we have proved too much, and that our argument is therefore in- 
jured by such proofs. To such an objection, we reply, that the 
weight of our argument, alone, utterly destroys the theory that the 
Jewish priesthood stood upon any foundation of human device, fraud, 
or imposture; and it is impossible that we can accumulate too much 
proof on that point. But, in truth, there was no neglect of the priest- 
hood in the constitution of the Jewish church, on the contrary, they 
stood upon the surest and the richest foundation that a priesthood 
ever enjoyed. Jehovah himself was their portion and inheritance.* 

* "And the Lord spake unto Aaron, lliou shalt have no inheritance in their 
land, neither shalt thou have any part amonir them. / 07/1 Ihy part and inhcnt- 
ance among the children of Israel."' — Numb, xviii. 20. 



164 

Standing on such a foundation as this, it must have been a matter 
of supreme indifference to the religious priest, or Levite, as to any 
provision that the mere letter of the law might make for them; and 
all those that did perform their duties conscientiously, found Jehovah 
faithful in his promise. Hence it was that the religious priest, or 
Levite, never failed of a provision in the bounty and providence of 
Jehovah, and hence they have never complained in the Scriptures 
that men failed to pay them their tithes, or were deficient to them 
in reverence. When they may have incidentally related particulars 
bearing on such points, it was done, as we shall show hereafter, with- 
out indignation, or even without comment on the transaction. All 
these and similar matters that are totally irreconcilable with the 
supposition of imposture, are facts that constitute the very essence 
and harmony of that really divine appointment, in which they stood 
connected with Jehovah, that God who made the heavens, the earth, 
and all things that are therein, and whose promise, as it never can, 
so it never will fail. 

But though the honors and subsistence of the Jewish priesthood 
was guaranteed them by the Creator of all things, the attainment 
and the enjoyment stood upon the condition that they should faith- 
fully discharge the duties assigned to them, whether as concerned 
God, or their fellow men. 

The Jewish priesthood then as being men, and subject to all the 
infirmity of other men, stood before God as free agents, undergoing 
intellectual and moral discipline; they were free to stand, and free 
to fall, and they did both. If they acted conscientiously and up- 
rightly, they were protected and blessed of Jehovah, and if they 
acted irreligiously or unjustly, they were forsaken by his providence, 
and punished as other irreligious men. 

Let this view of the intellectual and moral condition of the Jewish 
priesthood, explain any of those particular acts of irreligion or im- 
morality, that may be imputed to them in the Scripture page; for 
being like other men under trial before Jehovah, they were obnox- 
ious to all human infirmities and frailties, and which to their honor, 
be it said, they have not in the Scripture, attempted in a single pas- 
sage to extenuate or justify, even by a reference to the common in- 
firmity of human nature. 

I must presume that the evidence we have produced, must be suffi- 
cient to convince any honest sceptic, that it is impossible that the 
Pentateuch, which contains all the laws and enactments of the Jew- 
ish theocracy, could have been framed either by ambitious magis- 
trates, or knavish ecclesiastics. In this fact, therefore, several 
interesting and important particulars are determined. 



165 

1st. That the composition of the Pentateuch cannot have been 
either the primary or substantial act of Samuel,of Hilkiah,of Ezra, 
or of any other nameless individuals, for then they would have been 
forgers and impostors, had it been thus written. But we have proved 
that it could not have been written by knaves or impostors, since 
every enactment, as well as the whole scope of the book, is directly 
hostile to the end and purpose of any impostor, whether civilian, or 
ecclesiastic, or whether he may have lived at an earlier or later 
period of time. 

2d. Our argument in establishing the fact, that the Pentateuch 
was not written by an impostor, establishes the fact that it was 
written substantially by Moses, or from his dictation, for none 
else but Moses could have written or authorised the legal or relig- 
ious enunciations made in the Pentateuch, without being an im- 
postor. 

Though it is undoubted, that sundry matters have been either 
inadvertently added to the original text of these books, or may have 
been introduced by some presumptuous impertinence of exalting the 
glory of the Jewish nation, yet it has been sufficiently proved, and 
might be made much more conclusive, had we space, that nothing 
has been added to the text that can impeach the disinterestedness, 
and religious integrity of the biblical writers, from the days of 
Moses down to the time of the dissolution of the Jewish economy. 
For our examination has been made upon the Pentateuch, as it now 
exists, and as such, it bears the weight of all that asserted, or im- 
plied ecclesiastical knavery, which can be possibly imagined to have 
influenced a supposed selfish priesthood to study their interests, dur- 
ing the long time that they have proclaimed the existence and au- 
thority of the Pentateuch. 

But as we have proved this book of Moses wholly free from 
every suspicion of ecclesiastical fraud and imposture, it follows that 
any emendation of the text, can be only critical, and such as is ap- 
plied to the correction of any other ancient book. 

The religious doctrines therein taught, or the moral observances 
therein inculcated, it is impossible to correct or amend, for, accord- 
ing to our present copies, they inform us that on the score of reli- 
gion, we should reverence and serve Jehovah with all our heart, and 
mind, and soul, and strength, and as to our moral duties, that we 
should regard the welfare of our fellow creatures, by the same 
standard that we appreciate our own. And to this general theory 
not a single precept or commandment is anomalous. How then is 
it possible that the Pentateuch can have been corrupted in its doc- 
trine since the days of its promulgation. 



166 

Having thus vindicated the Pentateuch as the Constitution of 
the Jewish church and state, and out of which book no single enact- 
ment, under divine sanction, was ever pubHshed to them, I shall now 
proceed with arguments derived from other of the biblical writings, 
to ascertain the credibility of those writers who succeeded Moses, 
whether as administering the Jewish church, according to his insti- 
tutions, or as gradually preparing us for the expansion of that dis- 
pensation, into the universal scheme of Christianity. 



CHAPTER Viri. 

HISTORICAL NOTICES OF THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE SET- 
TLEMENT IN THE LAND OF CANAAN. 

Having sufficiently shown that the Jewish government was ad- 
ministered not hy the priesthood^ but by laymen, it is deemed a mat- 
ter of no importance to analyse the history of their rulers or kings, 
for they were avowedly in the same condition as the rulers or kings 
of other nations; free agents, undergoing the common trial appointed 
to mankind, free to act right, and free to do wrong, and as such the 
Bible represents them with the greatest impartiality. But as their 
history does not throw any direct light upon the subject we are inves- 
tigating, we shall not enter upon its particular consideration. 

This indifference, however, does not apply to the history of the 
Jewish priesthood in the times subsequent to Moses and Joshua; for 
their functions, as asserted in the Scripture, were, for a series of 
ages, exercised under all the particulars of the original constitutions 
of Moses. Communications, as if from Jehovah, were still made 
from time to time, and miracles were still performed, showing that 
the same God who had brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt 
still exercised a providential government over all those matters that 
concerned the interests of this remarkable people. 

Such assertions as these involve, in the view of deists and sceptics, 
much objection, under the charge or suspicion that they were priestly 
contrivances for selfish and corrupt purposes, and which the advo- 
cates of the Scriptures are required to justify in principle, or to de- 
monstrate in truth. 

As to justifying the reasonableness of the appointments or com- 
mands of the Deity, we undertake nothing, governin<T ourselves by 
those arguments that we have exhibited on this subject in our prefa- 
tory chapters, and to which the acutest of the deists and sceptics 
have given their warranty, as being correct. 

But we can very satisfactorily investigate the truth of many mat- 
ters of fact occurring in the history of the Jewish priesthood, on the 
intelligible ground of abundant familiarity with the motives that ex- 
cite mankind to any particular actions. We can discern, without 
much difficulty, where selfishness, ambition, and sensuality are at 



168 

work, for we are sufFicienily acquainted with the fact of the univer- 
sal domination of such passions, and we can easily appreciate the 
true nature of the system that purposes to develope itself in a man- 
ner consistent with the views of the projectors of such machinery. 

Upon this ground we shall now proceed to scrutinize every pas- 
sage in the historical books of the Old Testament where any trans- 
action occurs in which the priesthood were concerned. For the 
priesthood alone have been considered, by the deists, as the authors 
of Scripture history, and the contrivers of all the theological machi- 
nery introduced in the Bible page. The inspection of the histori- 
cal books, therefore, is of great importance in this particular, as it 
must show how the ecclesiastical system worked in its practice. If 
the institutions of Moses were the contrivance of a knavish priest- 
hood, the after history of the nation and church must be a perpetual 
commentary upon the selfish principles of the original institution; 
for it must be evident, that if a knavish priesthood devised the Mo- 
saical economy, they did not intend it to be a speculative theory, but 
one of practical use. An examination of the historical books of the 
Old Testament, therefore, will determine this matter sufficiently. 

The first mention made of the priesthood, after the time of Joshua, 
is in Judges xvii. 7, which relates that a Levite became a priest to a 
certain Micah, who idolatrously had made a graven image, a molten 
image, &;c. This priest, together with the images, were carried off, 
by the Danites, who established them in their tribe at the city of Dan, 
where they continued in their idolatrous uses until the captivity of 
the land. 

This transaction, so discreditable to the priestly body, and so di- 
rectly contrary to the institutes of Moses, requires no comment from 
us; for surely the priesthood never forged the relation, nor is it pos- 
sible for any one to conceive the record could be profitable to them 
in any manner whatever. 

The next occurrence in which the priesthood are mentioned, was 
concerning the abominable transaction at Gibeah, Judges xix. It 
may be well to observe, that the injured Levite made no address to 
the hierarchy, but appealed to the officers of the different tribes in 
their civil capacities alone. 

In conducting this matter, as the Benjamites refused to deliver up 
those concerned in this criminal affair, Jehovah was consulted 
through the priest, by Urim and Thummim, and answer was 
given accordingly. That Jehovah had promised such judgments, 
we have already stated in our former discourse. This consultation, 
therefore, was an official act of the high priest, consistent with that 



169 

promise. Whether it be true or not, it is impossible for us to prove 
by any other testimony than that of the author of the book of Judges. 
The reader, if he thinks we have not furnished already sufficient 
proof to justify the credibility of a transaction like the above, must 
hold the matter in suspense until we have completed the exhibition 
of all those arguments we are yet to produce as justifying the integ- 
rity and veracity of the Scripture authors. 

The next place where the priesthood are mentioned, is the detail 
of certain particulars concerning Eli, both judge and high priest of 
Israel. It is impossible to conjecture by what means he had attain- 
ed to the judgeship, as we have no historic relation on the subject. 
The fact is remarkable in this particular, that he was the only priest 
that ever did attain to political importance in Jewish history, ante- 
rior to the Babylonish captivity. 

But the facts related concerning Eli, are abundantly sufficient to de- 
stroy any theory that supposes the occurrences there stated were for- 
geries of a knavish priesthood. Indeed I should suppose it impossible 
for the deist to conceive how the narration has been preserved to our 
time, through the hands of a supposed knavish priesthood, without in- 
ferring a perpetual stupidity among the order, unexampled in human 
history. 

The Bible, after relating several immoral acts of Eli's children, 
represents, that a prophet, bearing a message from Jehovah, came 
to Eli, denouncing punishment on him for immoralities and irreve- 
rence in the public worship, both on his part and that of his two 
sons, which we shall quote from 1 Sam. chap. ii. 27 — 33. 

"And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus 
saith the Lord, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father 
when they were in Egypt, in Pharaoh's house? 

And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my 
priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod 
before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the of- 
fering made by fire of the children of Israel? 

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I 
have commanded in my habitation, and honorcst thy sons above 
me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the oflerings of 
Israel my people? 

Wherefore, the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy 
house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever. 
But now, the Lord saith. Be it far from mc; for them that honor 
me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 

Behold, the days come that I will cut off thine arm and the arm 
of thy father's house, that there shalt not be an old man in thy house. 
22 



170 

And thou shalt see an enemy in my haViitation in all the wealth 
that God shall give Israel: and there shalt not be an old man in thy 
house for ever. 

And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, 
shall be to consume thine eyes and to grieve thy heart, and all the 
increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age," &c. &c. 

The whole history, therefore, of Eli, is a singular anomaly, in- 
deed, in the history of priestcraft. For one would think a knavish 
priesthood would be desirous to exhibit their order, honorable and 
acceptable in the sight of God and man; instead of which, we here 
see the direct contrary. But, not to insist on this fact at the present 
moment, as we have yet a similar denunciation against Eli to intro- 
duce, we shall pass to the ensuing chapter, which informs us that 
Jehovah instructed a little boy, supposed to be about twelve years 
of age, one of the singers of the Levitical body, to repeat the 
preceding denunciation against the high priest. The whole narra- 
tion is exceedingly artless, bearing in itself strong internal evidence 
of its truth; but, as it is too long to quote entire, we shall alone ex- 
tract the words that Jehovah is represented to have spoken; see 1 
Sam. iii. 11—14. 

"And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, 
at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. 

In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have 
spoken concerning his house: when I begin, 1 will also make an end. 

For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever, for the 
iniquity which he knoweth, because his sons made themselves vile 
and he restrained them not. 

And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity 
of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for 
ever." 

It altogether exceeds my power of comprehension to understand, 
how there can be any priestly fraud implied in the above history of 
Eli. It seems to me ridiculous in the extreme, that any one could 
suppose a priest forged these miraculous relations; for they not only 
represent the high priest in an immoral, discreditable light, but they 
substantially affect the whole priestly order, by transferring the 
honor of the divine communication from the priesthood to a child, 
belonging to a body who were entirely subordinate to them. In no 
particulars could a knavish priesthood be more sensitive than in the 
above cases. To suppose they forged such relations would imply 
insanity. 

It is scarcely less wonderful how the narration has been preserved 



171 

from ancient time to the present, considering the palpable inferences 
that every layman might make on the subject. First, that a high 
priest might be as irreligious in the sight of God as any one else; 
and, secondly, that God had made use of a child, from a subordinate 
class, to warn the high priest of his sin and its impending punish- 
ment. Surely no ecclesiastical knaves could have ever desired such 
doctrines to prevail among the laity. 

The next place in which a priest is mentioned is in 1 Sam. xiv. 
18, 37; which simply relates, that Ahiah, the priest, was with Saul 
at Gibeah, and consulted God, I presume by Urim and Thummim, 
to know whether they should engage the Philistine army in battle. 
This was an official act of the priest, conformable to Mosaic ap- 
pointment, and involves no farther discussion than an asserted fact. 
We have no direct means of ascertaining whether the relation be 
true or false; it depends, alone, on the veracity of the Scripture 
writer. 

The next occurrence in which the priestood were involved is re- 
corded in 1 Sam. xxi. and xxii., where it is stated, that the high 
priest, and others of the order, incurred the displeasure of Saul, 
under the suspicion that they had favored the escape of David, whom 
Saul was pursuing. Full of madness and fury, he ordered them to 
be put to death; which is thus related: 

"And the king said unto the footmen, that stood about him. Turn 
and slay the priests of the Lord, because their hand also is with 
David, and because they knew when he fled and did not shew it to 
me. But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand 
to fall upon the priests of the Lord. 

And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. 
And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and 
slew that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. 

And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the 
sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and 
asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword." 

Is there nothing in this transaction deservmg our special conside- 
ration? Is this atrocious massacre a mere matter of historic record, 
that is to interest us no further than to ascertain the chronological 
date of its occurrence? From the examination of the more popular 
commentaries on these chapters of the Bible, one would scarcely 
think it involved any particular interest. Yet it appears to me to pos- 
sess so singular a degree of importance, that there are few passages 
in the Old Testament of equal value in determining the credibility 
of Scripture writers. For, let us ask what individual wrote the pro- 



172 

ceding history. Was it a priest? And who but knavish priests are 
considered, by deists and sceptics, to have written the Bible? And 
was the priest who wrote the above a knave and deluder of the peo- 
ple, who, in describing the massacre of the high priest and of his as- 
sistants, omitted to represent that such an act was of the deepest 
enormity. Yet unaccountable as it may seem, not only did the origi- 
nal writer forbear to insist upon the sin of slaying the high priest, 
but it is not the less astonishing, that during the after ages of Jew- 
ish history, there never has been found a single knavish priest to 
interpolate an expression of Jehovah's anger and vengeance against 
Saul for having put the high priest and eighty-five other priests to 
death.* 

Yet, it is abundantly evident, that there was no want of opportu- 
nity to have introduced a record of the divine displeasure in this 
matter, for in the concluding passages of Saul's life, when the ghosl 
of Samuel appeared to him, his condemnation is stated to have come 
from Jehovah, because he had not executed his order of extermina- 
tion upon the Amalakites, 1 Sam. xxviii. 18. The author of 1 
Chron. x. 13, also makes a similar mention of Saul. But neither of 
them say one word concerning the massacre of the priesthood at 
Nob. 

Now, surely, whether we consider the relation to have been thus 
made originally, or that an interpolation was never made in after 
time, declaring Saul's offence to be of the most henious nature, it is 
absolutely inconsistent with our experience and knowledge of hu- 
man nature, to suppose that priestly impostors either wrote or had 
afterwards the sole custody of the biblical writings. 

The next passage where a priest is introduced, is where David 
consulted Jehovah, through the priest, to know whether it was safe 
for him to remain in the town of Keilah. 1 Sam. xxiii. 9 to 12. 

The next passage is of a similar nature. David consulted by Urim 
whether he should pursue the Amalekites after they had pillaged his 
town of Ziklag. 1 Sam. xxx. 7 and 8. 

* That the reader may appreciate this extraordinary silence of the Scripture 
writers on an event so atrocious against the Jewish hierarchy, I request him 
to ponder on the following observation of Hume: "Few men can bear contra- 
diction with patience; but the clergy too often proceed even to a degree of fu- 
ry on this head; because all their credit and livelihood depend upon the belief 
which their opinions meet with; and they alone pretend to a divine and su- 
pernatural authority, or have any color for representing their antagonists as 
impious and profane. The Odium Thcologhim, or tlieological hatred, is noted 
even to a proverb, and means that degree of rancor which is the most furious 
and implacable." — Hume's Essay on National Characters. 

If the Scriptures be an ecclesiastical fraud, as the deists suppose, what can 
be more inexplicable than the forbearance of the writers on the massacre of the 
priests as above stated. 



173 

We have already stated that such consultations were appointments 
of Jehovah in the Mosaic institutions. As to their actual truth or 
falsehood, there can be no direct evidence produced. As matters of 
fact, they depend alone on the credibility allowed to the author of 
the relation. 

The next instance, in chronological order, is when David directed 
the ark to be brought up from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem. 1 Chron. 
xiii. xiv. XV. xvi. In this transaction the priests were officially em- 
ployed under the direction of the king, who composed the psalm 
sung by the Levites on the occasion. The character of the priest- 
hood is no ways involved in the history. 

The priesthood are next mentioned, incidentally, in 2 Sam. xv. 
24 — 30, which states that Zadok, Abiathar, and the Levites went 
forth from Jerusalem with David, when he fled from his son Absalom. 

The next mention of the priests is 2 Sam. xix. 11, where David 
asks of the priests that they should use their influence with the el- 
ders of Judah, that he might be again reinstated in the throne lately 
usurped by Absalom. 

The next place where notice is taken of the priesthood is in 1 
Chron. xxiii. xxiv. xxv. xxvi. where the priests and Levites are enu- 
merated and classed by an order of David. 

We next find mention made of the priesthood, 1 Kings i. which 
relates the different pretensions of Adonijah and Solomon to the suc- 
cession of David's throne, and that Abiathar and Zadok espoused 
different sides of the questions. There is nothing particular involv- 
ed in the transaction to impeach the integrity of either of the priests 
in preferring one aspirant rather than the other, so far as the Scrip- 
ture informs us. In 1 Kings ii. 15, Adonijah speaks very confident- 
ly as to his natural right to the throve, and which Solomon him- 
self seems to admit, as stated in verse 22 of the same chapter. 

The next occurrence in the history of the priesthood, is the re- 
markable instance in which Solomon deprives Abiathar of the dig- 
nity of being high priest, 1 Kings ii. 26. A transaction eminently 
exhibiting how superior the civil authorities were to the priesthood, 
but which we have already sufficiently exhibited in a former page. 

But the present instance is a very suitable one for us to reiterate 
the question, are the Scriptures indeed the composition of a knavish 
priesthood, or have they been vitiated by priestly hands in a later 
time? 

Did ever priestly impostors relate, before or since, or is it consist- 
ent with common sense that they should relate, that a civil ruler 
could eject the high priest from his function and that the indignation 



174 

of God was not manifested upon the offender. Yet the Bible affords 
no such comment on the proceeding, not for want of opportunity or 
from regard to the reputation of Solomon, for it tells us, on a suita- 
ble occasion, that the king incurred the displeasure of Jehovah for 
his idolatrous practices, and who, in consequence, sent him a mes- 
sage by a prophet, declaring he would rend the kingdom from him 
for that offence. But not a word is ever said concerning the act of 
ejecting Abiathar the high priest, a transgression, which in the view 
of priestly knaves and impostors, could have been nothing less than 
the greatest enormity he could have committed. How unaccounta- 
ble that the Scripture, whose end and purpose, according to deistical 
theory, was to delude the people, that the priesthood might govern 
them, should relate that the civil ruler could degrade the high priest 
from his sacred appointment without incurring the anger and ven- 
geance of an offended Deity. 

The next occurrence in which the priesthood were implicated, 
was at the consecration of the temple built by Solomon, 1 Kings 
viii. But before we call the reader's attention to the relation there 
made, it is necessary that we should relate certain matters that oc- 
curred previous to the building of the temple, which we consider too 
important to be passed over without due consideration. These cir- 
cumstances, connected with the project of building a temple to Jeho- 
vah, are stated 1 Chron. xvii. 1, &c. 

"Now it came to pass as David sat in his house, that David said to 

Nathan the prophet^Lo I dwell in an house of cedars, but the ark of 

the covenant of the Lord remaineth under curtains, (i. e. in a tent.) 

Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart, for 

God is with thee. 

And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to 
Nathan saying. 

Go and tell David my servant. Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt 
not build me an house to dwell in. 

For I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up 
Israel unto this day, but have gone from tent to tent and from one 
tabernacle to another," &c. &c. 

Though there are several other verses on this subject, the above 
are sufficient to answer the purpose of the present exposition. We 
learn by those quoted, that, during all the time that had elapsed from 
Joshua to David, or a period of more than live hundred years, that 
the piety of the nation had never been stimulated to build a tem- 
ple to Jehovah by the arts and influences of the priesthood, an un- 
dertaking one would suppose they had a direct interest to excite. 



175 

And now, most strangely, when a powerful king offers to build a 
temple, we find the prophet Nathan making a communication as 
from Jehovah himself, representing that though the piety of the 
king's intention was accepted by the Deity, yet he prohibits him 
from making such an erection. The reason of this prohibition on 
the part of Jehovah is stated 1 Chron. xxii. 7, 8, 9. 

"And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me it was in my 
mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God. 

But the word of the Lord came to me saying. Thou hast shed 
blood abundantly and hast made great wars,- thou shalt not build an 
house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the 
earth in my sight." 

This statement is confirmed also by 1 Chron. xxviii. 2 and 3, 
where it is related that David assembled his officers in great num- 
bers. 

"Then David, the king, stood up upon his feet and said: Hear me 
my brethren and my people. As for me 1 had in my heart to build 
an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the 
footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building. 

But God said unto me. Thou shalt not build an house for my 
name, because thou hast been a man of war and hast shed blood." 

Now, it is utterly impossible, according to any testimony which 
has been furnished by human experience, that such relations as are 
quoted above can be the work of fraud and imposture. Was there 
ever any other body of priests, either in past or present time, who 
have objected to a warrior building a temple to God, on the ground 
that he had shed much blood.? On the contrary, how many religious 
buildings have been erected to expiate the sins of the shedder of 
blood? In what light, then, can we consider this astonishing 
anomaly in ecclesiastical history, that the Jewish priests, who had 
not even one single temple in the whole land, should decline the 
erection of one when freely offered by their king, and, pretending a 
communication from their God, decline it on the ground that their 
sovereign had shed much blood? 

But, though Jehovah is represented as refusing a temple from 
David as a "man of blood," he assures David that his son and suc- 
cessor should erect him a temple, and that he should have a reign of 
peace and prosperity; that he might consecrate the temple with 
pure and bloodless hands, and thus it was done. Solomon reigned 
in peace and in unexampled prosperity; built the celebrated Temple 
of Jerusalem; furnished it in the most magnificent manner: and the 
Bible tells us it was further honored by Jehovah with the miracu- 



176 

lous manifestations of his presence. This, again, the infidel will 
say, was trick and imposture; but for what purpose was the trick 
played? Favorable as the occasion was to priestcraft, there is not 
a syllable said, or sign given, whereby the priestly office is either 
magnified or extended in their privileges; they still hold nothing 
but their tithes, and those dependant on the free will of the nation: 
they are not allowed to hold real estate any more than in the days 
of Moses: — and all that this supposed juggling miracle produced, 
was the following revelation from Jehovah, not communicated even 
by or through a priest, but to Solomon himself, as is related in 1 
Kings ix. 3 to 9. 

"And the Lord said to Solomon, I have heard thy prayer and thy 
supplication that thou hast made before me. I have hallowed this 
house which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and 
mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. 

And if thou wilt walk before me as David thy father walked, in 
integrity of heart and in uprightness, to do according to all that I 
have commanded thee, and will keep my statutes and my judgments. 

Then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for- 
ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not 
fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. 

But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your chil- 
dren, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes, which I 
have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them; 
then will I cutoff Israel out of the land which I have given them, 
and this house which I have hallowed, for my name, will I cast out 
of my sight; and Israel shall become a proverb and a by-word among 
all people. 

And this house which is high, every one that passeth by it 
shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, why hath the 
Lord done this unto this land and to this house? 

And they shall answer, because they forsook the Lord their God, 
who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have 
taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them and served 
them; therefore hath the Lord brought upon them all this evil." 

A grand object indeed, Solomon and his knavish priesthood gain- 
ed, in stating to the deluded people, this revelation that Jehovah had 
made to the king. Who is there so silly among men as to believe 
the object of knaves and impostors, in contriving such machinery, 
was to receive such an answer as is represented to have come to 
Solomon; an answer in which neither king or priest are commend- 
ed, or assured of special favor and protection? 



177 

But let us ask, has not the threatened punishment been fulfilled? 
Is not Israel a by-word and reproach? And where is tlie temple? 
Were the Scripture writers, indeed, guilty of fraud and imposture 
when they penned the above prophetical relation? 

The next transaction in chronological order concerning the priest- 
hood, is in 2 Chron. xi. 13, 14, which relates that the priests and 
Levites came up to Jerusalem, abandoning their cities and posses- 
sions in the kingdom of Jeroboam in consequence of the idolatrous 
establishment made by him in the now separate kingdom of Israel. 
We next find mention of the priesthood in 2 Chron. xiii. 14, 
where it states the priests sounded the trumpets immediately pre- 
ceding a battle between Abijah and Jeroboam. In the message pre- 
viously sent to Jeroboam, Abijah reproaches him with having set up 
an idolatrous religion, and for having disregarded the priests and Le- 
vites in the exercise of their functions as appointed by Moses. 

The next mention of the priesthood is in 2 Chron. xvii. 9, 10, 
which relates that Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, directed his princes, 
officers, and certain priests and Levites to go throughout the king- 
dom, and teach the people out of the book of the Law of the Lord. 
We find mention again made of the priests and Levites in 2 
Chron. xix. 8 to 11, where Jehoshaphat reorganizes and establishes 
them in the exercise of their peculiar functions at Jerusalem, 

In the ensuing chapter we find mention made of the Levites, under 
the following circumstances. The Moabites, Ammonites, and some 
other nations advanced in hostile array against Jehoshaphat, causing 
great consternation and alarm. But while the king and his people 
were making supplication to Jehovah against these enemies, it is 
stated that the Spirit of God came upon Jahaziel, a Levite, who tells 
the king and people to dismiss their fears, for Jehovah would mirac- 
uously deliver them from their foes; which was presently fulfilled 
before them. 

As we are unable to prove the miraculous deliverance of Jehosha- 
phat by any direct manner, or from any disinterested testimony, we 
can say nothing on this matter. 

If it be a forgery, the singular disinterestedness of the priesthood 
is worthy of admiration, in the fact that they should forbear to as- 
sume the credit of the miraculous deliverance to themselves, and 
should attribute it to one of the singers among the Levites. 

The next passage of Scripture that notices the priesthood, is 2 

Kings, xi. 4, &c. Jehoiada, the high-priest, having saved Jehoash 

from the massacre by which his family were exterminated, secretc.>^ 

him in the temple for several years. Ho afterwards brings him 

23 



178 

forth as the lawful heir to the throne, and with the assistance of the 
soldiery, destroys the usurped government of queen Athaliah. 

The whole transaction was perfectly honorable and correct, though 
I am sorry the high priest was so situated as to have any direction 
in the counter revolution. Was it not for this single transaction we 
could assert without any dispute, that the priests never took any part 
in the political revolutions of the nation. Nevertheless, the agency 
of the high priest was humane and honorable, and is liable to no im- 
proper imputation. 

The next instance to be observed is 2 Kings xii. 4, dec. Here it 
is related that Jehoash censured the priesthood for not making the 
necessary repairs to the temple, though they had received money 
officially from the people according to the law of Moses, and which 
would imply that they should, from the sums thus received, keep the 
sanctuary in good repair. I do not perceive that the priesthood had 
been guilty of any offence by not making the repairs, but certainly 
it would have been much more to their credit had they done so. 
The repairs of the temple were afterwards made by voluntary con- 
tributions among the people. 

The next relation we have concerning the priests, is to be found in 
chronological order, in 2 Chron. xxiv. 17, &c. From which we learn 
that after the death of Jehoiada the high priest, who had preserved 
the life and kingdom of Joash, the influence of his officers and cour- 
tiers seduced the king into idolatrous practices, for which the wrath 
of God came upon Jerusalem and Judah,&c. The extract concern- 
ing the priest is the following: 

"And the spirit of God came upon Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada 
the priest, which stood above the people and said unto them. Thus 
saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that 
ye cannot prosper, because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also 
forsaken you. 

And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at 
the commandment of the king, in the court of the house of the Lord." 

As the reader must be, by this time, familiar with the views by 
which we have hitherto regarded these incidental notices of super- 
natural transactions, we forbear to repeat them. 

The next instance relative to the priesthood, is recorded in 2 
Chron. xxvi. 16, &c. By that chapter, we learn that Azariah the 
high-priest, with his assistants, forcibly prevented king Uzziah from 
performing an act in the temple that alone pertained to the priestly 
office. 

"And they withstood Uzziah, the king, and said uuto him, It ap- 



179 

pertainetli not unto tliee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord; 
but to tha sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense. Go 
out of the temple for tliou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for 
thine honor from the Lord God," &c. 

But, Uzziah, persisting in his attempt, was struck with a leprosy 
and went out the temple bearing the displeasure of God on him, and 
so continued a leper to his death. 

As to this circumstance, we have no testimony to urge, in which 
the truth of the fact may be demonstrated. If the institutions of 
Moses were appointed or sanctioned by Jehovah, it was perfectly 
consistent with such an appointment, that king Uzziah should be 
punished by the deity for his presumptuous intrusion into a service, 
contrary to his express directions. 

The next matter in chronological order, is related 2 Kings xvi. 10 
to 16. We are there told that king Ahaz, when at Damascus, was 
so much pleased with the fashion of an idolatrous altar erected there, 
that he sent the pattern of it to the high priest at Jerusalem to have 
one made like it, which was done accordingly. 

This discreditable act, on the part of the high priest, has certainly 
not been an interpolation by artful ecclesiastics. It is more strange 
that the relation has been suffered to continue in all copies of the 
Bible, supposing the Jewish priesthood to have been knaves and im- 
postors, in succeeding times. 

The next event in the ecclesiastical history of the Jewish priest- 
hood, occupies three chapters in 2 Chron, xxix. &c. They relate 
the various steps pursued by Hezekiah, king of Judah, to reform and 
reorganize the church in his reign. It will be useless for us to go 
into any investigation of the official acts of the king or functions of 
the priesthood, as they involve no matter of important consideration 
but in one particular, viz. 

"Moreover, the king commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusa- 
lem, to give the portion of the priests and the LcviteSjthat they might 
be encourao-ed in the law of the Lord. 

o 

And as soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of 
Israel brought in abundance of the first fruits of corn, wine, and oil, 
and honey, and of all the increase of the field, and the titlio of all 
things, brought they abundantly," &c. 

This passage is remarkable in this particular, that it is the first 
time, since the days of Moses, that the tithe is mentioned. A pe- 
riod of above eight hundred years. 

Surely the knavish priests that have been charged with the com- 
position of the biblical writings, had strangely neglected the selfish 



180 

contrivance attributed to Moses respectinf^ their tithes. One would 
think that whilst they were writing so many histories of kings, and 
soldiers, and priests, they might have devoted some attention to their 
own subsistence, either to have commended the tithe payer or to in- 
form them how sinful it was to withhold the tithe of God's priests, 
and then to show what divine judgments had tbllowed such omis- 
sions. Yet not a word has been said concerning the matter in all 
the historical books of the Scripture, but in this one place, where it is 
merely related as an ordinary particular of history. It certainly is 
difficult, under any opinion of the Jewish economy, to explain the 
remarkable omission observable in all the Scripture historians con- 
cerning tithes. But nothing can be more incomprehensible and ab- 
surd, than any attempt to reconcile the fact, with the theory, that 
considers the Jewish priests to have been knaves and impostors. 

The next occurrence pertaining to the history of the priesthood, 
is related in 2 Kings xix. 2, &c. It is there recorded that Hezekiah 
sent several officers and the elders of the priests, covered with 
sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet, a layman of the tribe of Judah, to in- 
treat his prayers for the deliverance of Jerusalem, then besieged by 
an Assyrian army. 

This circumstance is a very remarkable one towards testing the 
integrity of the Scripture writings on the charge of being a priestly 
contrivance. For it is inconceivable that any knavish priest should 
relate, that the prayers of a layman could be more prevailing with 
God than what they could offer in virtue of their ecclesiastical ap- 
pointments. 

Yet, notwithstanding this self-evident view, the priests did come 
to Isaiah, and Jehovah did reveal his purpose to them, through the 
prophet. Was this remarkable circumstance and this miraculous 
communication a forgery of the priests? If it was, it is vastly more 
disinterested than our experience would have justified us to have ex- 
pected from priestly impostors. We should have anticipated they 
would have taken the credit to themselves, instead of ascribing it to 
a layman. 

The next transaction in which the priesthood were concerned, is 
related in 2 Kings xxii. We here are informed, that when the 
temple was repaired under" the direction of king Josiah, that Hil- 
kiah, the high-priest, in the execution of the work, found a book of 
the law of Moses, which, I presume, was the original copy that had 
been placed in the ark, or rather with the ark in the sanctuary. 
This circumstance, as estimated by the gross ignorance of its con- 
tents, both on the part of the king and high-priest, has made 



181 

this passage of great interest in all the deistical controversies; for 
they have pretended to see, in this history, the time when the Pen- 
tateuch was first fraudulently imposed on the people by the instrumen- 
tality of Hilkiah, the high-priest.* 

Our answer to the deists will be very brief. We have nothing 
else to do than refer them to the analysis we have already made at 
page 164, &c. concerning the honesty and credibility of the writers 
of the Pentateuch, and in which we have, I apprehend, shown, con- 
clusively, that it is impossible they could have been knaves and im- 
postors. The arguments by which we established that conclusion, 
are absolute; i. e. they rest upon no particular theory of origin, and 
are, therefore, equally conclusive against any supposed fraud at any 
time whatever. If the arguments we have used, be sufficient to 
show the system to be wholly at variance with any supposition of 
fraud and imposture in the days of Moses, the very same argu- 
ments are conclusive against the supposition of a fraud in the days 
of Hilkiah, or at any other supposed time, be it when it may. 

As I have already proved the institutions of the law of Moses 
free from even the smallest imputation of ecclesiastical knavery, any 
difficulty in appreciating the discovery of the book of the law by 
Hilkiah, and its attending circumstances, amounts to nothing more 
than a historical difficulty, which originates alone from the briefness 
of statement made on the subject. 

As our embarrassment, therefore, proceeds from the want of a 
more particular account of this transaction, our explanation of it must 
be more or less conjectural. I apprehend the following specula- 
tion on the subject will place it in a very intelligible light. 

The Scriptures represent the times preceding the reign of Josiah 
to have been very irreligious. The kings, the court, and the nation, 
generally, seem to be alike involved in the censures of the prophetic 
writers. But, notwithstanding their general irreligious conduct, the 
external rites, forms, and ceremonies, of their national religion 
were observed with all formality. 

It must be remembered, however, that, before the return from 
the Babylonish captivity, there were no synagogues, nor places for 
religious instruction or worship, in all Judea, but at the temple at 
Jerusalem."!" Here there was a formal and splendid service ren- 

* The absurdity of the deists in giving this discovery of Hilkiah's so much 
credit as a historical statement, is a manifest proof of their great ignorance 
of the Scriptures; for why is this statement more creditable than that made 
in 2 Chron. xvii. 7 to 9, which represents Jchoshaphat, three hundred years 
before Josiah, to have sent persons to instruct the people from the book of 
the Law of Jehovah? Will they pretend that these books were not the same? 
If they do, the onus proband i lays on them. 

t It may be supposed, and I know of nothing to contradict it, that opportu- 



182 

dered continually, but which consisted in making sacrifices, and 
chanting of psalms and hymns by musical choirs. There were 
no sermons or lectures delivered at the temple, and the reading of 
the Scriptures was restricted to a formal reading of the law once in 
seven years, according to the appointment of Moses. 

Under such a system, it is clear, that, whatever opportunities 
existed for persons in their individual capacities to understand the 
Scriptures, yet, if they chose to neglect their privilege, they could 
easily lapse into gross ignorance by omitting to read them. Yet, 
at the same time, they might attend the services of the temple, and 
celebrate the great festivals of the nation with all formality. 

The condition of the Jewish people, at this time, was analogous 
to the state of Christendom before the Reformation by Luther. 
Christianity was then, every where, exhibited in a splendid service 
of singing and chanting, of forms and ceremonies, at which all 
classes of persons assisted with all sincerity of ignorant devotion. 
But when the more devout body of people began to read the Scrip- 
tures for themselves, the surprise of the more enlightened portion 
at the exhibition of its inspired doctrine could hardly have been less 
than that of king Josiah. 

The cases are so parallel, that the latter can sufficiently explain 
the more ancient difficulty, and should satisfy a reasonable sceptic 
that the ignorance of the king and high-priest concerning the con- 
tents of the Scripture, constitutes no objection to the supposition 
that copies of the Scripture were common enough with the religious 
Jews at that time, though the monarch and his courtly clergy were 
in great ignorance concerning their requirements and doctrines. 

Under this same head, we shall also include the casual mention 
made of the sacrificial functions exercised by the priesthood at the 
time when Josiah renewed the covenant with Jehovah, and attempted 
to bring back the nation to a religious observance of the institutions 
of Moses. It may be well to remark, that, whatever views he or 
the priesthood may have entertained as to the possibility of averting 
the impending judgments of Jehovah, nothing could now arrest the 
coming veno^eance. As it is said in 2 Kinors xxiii. 26, 27. 

"Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his 
great wrath wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, be- 

nities for religious instruction were afforded in the cities of the priests and 
Levites, and also in the schools of the prophets. I have no doubt, also, but 
individuals every where throughout Judea instructed such as were desirous 
of knowina; their religious duties. All I contend for is, that there were no 
places appointed for this purpose under the Jewish laws, and, therefore, there 
was no general or habitual resort, of the people at large, to places set apart for 
religious instruction, as was the case afterv^'ards, when the synagogues were 
established. 



183 

cause of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him 
withal. 

And the Lord said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as 
I have removed Israel, and will cast offthis city Jerusalem which I 
have chosen, and the house of which 1 said my name shall be there." 

This is the last transaction in which the priesthood were con- 
cerned, previous to the Babylonian captivity. And the history of 
the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar, and sack of Jerusalem, concludes 
with the following comment of the biblical writer, upon the previous 
history of the Jewish people. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, &c. 

"Moreover, all the chief of the priests and the people had trans- 
gressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen, and 
polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. 

And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messen- 
gers, rising up betimes, and sending, because he had compassion on 
his people and on his dwelling place. 

But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his pro- 
phets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people till there 
was no remedy. 

Therefore, he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who 
slew their young men with the sword, in the house of their sanc- 
tuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, 
or him who stooped for age, he gave them all into his hand. 

And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of 
Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed 
all the goodly vessels thereof. 

And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to 
Babylon, where they were servants to him and his sons until the 
reign of the kingdom of Persia." 

I should presume it impossible for any rational creature to sup- 
pose any knavish priest wrote the preceding statement, for it is the 
absolute moral to be deduced from all previous Jewish history. It 
must be evident that the writer wished his readers to consider the 
fatal consequences of the disobedience of their forefathers. He, 
therefore, enumerates, specifically, their offences and the punish- 
ment that followed such transgressions. 

But not one word does he say of any disobedience or disrespect 
towards the priesthood, or of any neglect of the payment of their 
tithes, or of any thing else that concerned their privileges. On the 
contrary, he very expressly places the priesthood foremost in the 
list of those transgressors by whom Jehovah's vengeance had been 
excited. Nothing could be more preposterously absurd, than this 



184 

was the author a knavish priest. His chief end in writing the his- 
tory could have been nothing else than to exalt his own order. 

I see no sufficient object to make an analysis of the books of Ezra 
and Nehemiah, which are simple historical relations of the unhappy 
condition of the Jewish nation subsequent to their return from the 
captivity at Babylon, that had lasted for seventy years. They were 
now under the dominion of the Persian kings, and from the va- 
rious officers connected with that monarchy, they suffered various 
afflictions and persecutions. 

The chief aim of Ezra and Nehemiah was to re-establish the na- 
tion on the ancient foundations. For this purpose they made a cove- 
nant among themselves, under a curse, "to walk in God's law which 
was given by Moses, the servant of God," &c. 

After the analysis we have previously made of those matters, 
whilst investigating those institutions of Moses that concern the 
priesthood, it would be superfluous to inquire into the merits of the 
hypothesis suggested by some of the deistical writers, that Ezra and 
Nehemiah were especially the knaves and impostors that either 
forged or falsified the ancient history of the Jews, and attributed 
their composition to Moses and other biblical writers. It is un- 
necessary for us to inquire into the truth or falsehood of such a con- 
jecture, for the arguments by which we have justified the disinter- 
estedness and integrity of the author of the Pentateuch, hold good 
against any theory of scepticism, it matters not who may be sug- 
gested to have written those books. 

We have considered this subject absolutely at page 165, and if there 
is any value in argument, we have there vindicated the ordinances 
and appointments of those books from any possible suspicion of kna- 
very or of priestly imposture. The same arguments that show dis- 
tinctly the Jewish economy was altogether adverse to the purposes 
of a knavish priesthood, in the days of Moses, prove it would be so, 
in an equal degree, in the days of any other supposed ambitious, de- 
signing individual, whether civil or ecclesiastical. 

Therefore, there can be no justifiable ground to refer the publica- 
tion of the Pentateuch, the sole constitution and law of the Jewish 
people, to any other individual than him to whom the unvarying tra- 
dition of the nation alone refers as its author. 

The reader who remembers the observation made at the com- 
mencement of this chapter, that I would extract and analyse every 
transaction in which the priesthood were concerned as recorded in 
the historical books of Scripture, after the times of Moses and 
Joshua, may possibly be surprised to find the instances so few in 



185 

number, and in none admitting of any imputation of stilish or im- 
proper motives, whether as existed towards the civil government of 
the land, or of knavery and imposture as exercised towards the peo- 
ple. 

But, perhaps the reader may be more surprised that lie has not 
seen, under the preceding notices of transactions in which the priest- 
hood were concerned, any account of a miracle having been perform- 
ed by the priesthood, unless the leprosy of king Uzziah be so con- 
sidered, and but one miraculous message havinn; been communicat- 
ed to a priest, (Zachariah, son of Jehoiada,) in all the recorded his- 
tory of the nation as set forth in the Hible. We exclude the in- 
stances concerning judgments by Urim and Thummim, and as being 
official acts which were exercised under the requirement of the civil 
ruler, and which we have faithfully enumerated in our preceding- 
analysis in the chronological order in which they occurred. 

But though we do not find the agency of the priesthood impli- 
cated as above stated, in the performance of miracles, or in com- 
municating messages, as if from Jehovah to the nation, yet it is 
abundantly familiar to every one acquainted with the Bible, that 
during this very same period of time, numerous miracles were per- 
formed, and numerous revelations made, as if from Jehovah to the 
Jewish people. By what class of persons, then, were these super- 
natural agencies accomplished or communicated? 

Is it not very strange that simple laymen, wholly unconnected 
with the church establishment, were the individuals who exhibited 
these most brilliant and imposing actions recorded in Jewish histo- 
ry? Yet such is the fact, the numerous prophets of God whose 
wonderful agencies constitute so great a portion of the Scripture 
writings, were, as far as we can ascertain their history, with the ex- 
ception of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, all laymen. 

This very remarkable fact consummates the full absurdity of the 
hypothesis, that conjectures the Bible to have been the composition 
of priestly knaves and impostors, for in addition to the absurdity which 
we have manifestly shown attends such a theory by our previous ex- 
hibitions, we must now add the crowning absurdity, that the suppos- 
ed knavish priests of the Jewish system should have withheld from 
theirorder, the honor of performing miracles, of communicating the 
messages of Jehovah, and should have attributed them most abun- 
dantly to the prophets, who, with but two exceptions, were all lay- 
men, and from whose mouth the priesthood were inslnirtfvl, warned, 
and reproved. 

r, therefore, should suppose it inipossiblo that any ono i:i the pos- 
24 



186 

session of his senses, and at all regarding the value of human expe- 
rience in such matters, can believe the Bible to have been a forgery 
by knavish priests. Then what men were they that were guilty of 
the imposture, and for what purpose was the fraud devised? The 
deists and sceptics have never advanced any other opinion than that 
the priesthood contrived the system, for their own selfish purposes. 
Our preceding analysis is, however, amply sufficient to disprove 
the supposition of any agency of knavish or ambitious priests on the 
subject, and this being rendered clear, I presume the integrity and 
veracity of the Scripture writers must be established to the satisfac- 
tion of any honest man, desirous of knowing the truth. 



CHAPTER IX. 

ON THE PROPHETS. 

From the concluding passages of our last chapter, it is evidently 
a matter of the greatest importance that we ascertain the true char- 
acter of the scripture prophets. This we can accomplish by re- 
garding the nature of their official functions, their actual condition 
in the Jewish nation, and what was their temporal interest. A 
thorough scrutiny into these particulars, will not only throw a vast 
light upon the moral constitution of the Jewish church, but will give us 
further assurance as to the credibility of the fact, that God did com- 
mission Moses to lay the foundations of the Christian religion. 

It is a serious impediment to our general disquisition, that we are 
continually obliged to defer applying an argument, until we have 
previously informed the reader of the condition of things, upon which 
the force of the argument itself depends. But the necessity of such 
digressions is unavoidable. A sufficient knowledge of many of those 
particulars implicated in the biblical writings, is not a part of the 
literary attainments of general readers, and the subject itself is em- 
barrassed, frequently, with perplexities concerning local matters, 
pertaining to a people who differed widely from us in their habits 
and institutions, whose history is thrown back in time several thou- 
sand years, and is further related only in dead languages. Such a 
statement as this not only implies necessarily many difficult consid- 
erations to the general reader, but also that particular circumstances 
may exist, which are but imperfectly comprehended even by those 
who have made such subjects matters of special study and examina- 
tion. 

Among those subjects of which the Christian world in general 
have a very uncertain, if not an improper opinion, is the character 
of those persons designated in the Scriptures by the term prophets, 
and which it is necessary we should put in a much clearer light, 
than the one in which they are regarded by the more ordinary read- 
ers of the Scripture. 

By the word prophet, men commonly understand an individual who 
announces a communication from God, and in an especial manner, 
one who reveals future tilings, whether of a greater or less remote^- 
ness in time. 



188 

But the term is used in the Scriptures in a sense very wide of this 
general apprehension. Thus Abraham, Isaac, &;c., are called pro- 
phets. The preachers of the Gospel are called prophets, and are 
largely exhibited in this light by St. Paul. (1 Corinth, xiv. 1 to 6 
&c. ad finem.) He also calls a heathen moral poet a prophet. 
(Titus i. 12.) We further read of the prophets of Baal, &;c. 

By a careful examination of the meaning of the term, in the vari- 
ous passages of the Bible, we shall learn, that the word prophet, 
legitim.ately implies any person who proclaims or teaches the relig- 
ious doctrines, pertaining to the worship of any deity whatever, 
though it be done without any pretensions of being inspired. In its 
proper signification, every one, whether layman or clergyman, that 
publicly proclaims or vindicates the truth of Christianity is a prophet 
ipso facto. 

In the ancient times of Jewish history, there were persons al- 
ways to be found, who appreciating the importance of faithfully 
serving Jehovah, strenuously urged their fellow citizens to a reve- 
rential obedience of his commandments, and who announced the 
consequences of an irreligious or immoral conduct. Though they 
laid no claim to an inspired authority, they were, nevertheless, pro- 
phets. 

But from time to time Jehovah did hold spiritual communications 
with particular individuals, of this religious class of persons, who 
then, as being especially under divine influences, became in a more 
eminent degree prophets, or proclaimers of the existence and provi- 
dence of God, and more zealously urged men to obey and serve him, 
such were Isaiah, Daniel, &c. 

In process of time, the term prophet has been appropriated 
alone to those individuals who were inspired, and especially so, when 
they foretold any future event. A similar change has taken place 
with the word saint^ which, in the apostolic writings, was applied to 
all sincere professors of Christianity: at present, it is applied only 
to those who have been canonized by the church. 

By the preceding exposition, it will be easy to comprehend the na- 
ture and position of the different persons called prophets in the Old 
Testament, and who, as they are mentioned under circumstances 
sometimes very contradictory to the ordinary conception of their 
cliaracter, embarrass the reader, and render a very simple occur- 
rence at times almost unintelligible. 

This view will also enable us to understand distinctly the position 
of those persons among the Jews who are said, in the Old Testa- 
ment, to "prophecy falsely," but who are never, to my recollection 



189 

in any place, called false prophets^ and which I would explain in 
this manner: In the number of persons considered under the gene- 
ral term prophets, were some who were weak, some injudicious, 
some enthusiastic, and some, no doubt, were hypocrites; each of 
whom, according to their tempers and understandings, acted consist- 
ently with weakness, misjudgment, with enthusiasm, and with hy- 
pocrisy; special instances of such persons perhaps might be exhib- 
ited by a careful examination of Scripture. But as this would an- 
swer no immediate benefit to our scrutiny, we shall only use the 
statement made, to remark, that we do not consider, that all of those 
persons who acted in opposition to the really inspired prophets of 
God, were knaves and hypocrites, as some were, undoubtedly, but that, 
in many mstances, they were simply presumptuous individuals, who 
undertook, on various occasions, to proclaim to the people, from 
their self-sufficient notions, what God would do, or would not do; 
just as at present, we sometimes hear a shallow, presumptuous cler- 
gyman expound to his congregation erroneous doctrines with as 
much dogmatism, as if he himself had been of the very councils of 
God. Such persons, in the language of the Old Testament Scrip- 
ture, would be said to prophecy falsely. 

I trust the preceding view will enable the reader to appreciate 
the general history of the prophets, according to the various cir- 
cumstances under which we find them exhibited in the Scriptare 
writings. The material point of which, is this, that any one who- 
soever that, in a zealous manner, urged obedience to the Law of 
God, was a prophet, though he made no pretension to inspiration;* 
but that those individuals of this general body, who were favored by 
the manifest influences of God's Spirit, were prophets in a more emi- 
nent degree. Such were those whose writings are embodied in ca- 
nonical Scripture under that term, and of whom we are now about 
to discourse at large. 

Though it may be said there was a succession of inspired pro- 
phets among the Jewish people, yet they were not necessarily con- 
nected with, or consequent to each other. At times there was but 
one individual claiming this high commission, at other times there 
may have been several; and again, there were times when tiiere 
were none such avowedly in the land. They were, in fact, special 
ministers of God, dependent upon him for the communications they 

* This view gives us a rational explanation of those associations or commu- 
nities termed "schools of the prophets." If we remember that the term pro- 
phet was applied to any religious teacher, the subject is immediately intelligi- 
ble, whereas under the ordinary notion that prophet also imjilied inspiralio/u 
the subject is incomprehensible. 



190 

were to make, and when not under his especial influences, were in 
the common condition of other pious individuals. 

In the exercise of their various commissions as detailed in the 
Scriptures, we find them engaged in the following particulars: 

1st. They conveyed special messages, commands, or appointments 
of God to various individuals. 

2d. They reproved the people at large for national sins. 

3d. They reproved and censured, in the most unequivocal lan- 
guage, the irreligious or immoral conduct of priests, kings, and ru- 
lers, both generally and individually. 

4th. They exhorted all classes and orders of men with earnest- 
ness and affection, to act according to the strict requirements of the 
law of Moses, and promised them, in the name of Jehovah, bless- 
ings if obedient. 

5th. They threatened every one, whether king, priest, or people, 
with the judgments of God if they persisted in any irreligious or 
immoral conduct. But in their threats of punishment they did not 
commonly speak in general terms, but foretold the particular pun- 
ishment which Jehovah would surely bring on them. 

6th. And, as an eminent act of their functions, they announced 
that Jehovah had great purposes in train towards establishing a 
kingdom on the earth, in which all the human family should be com- 
prehended under the rule and dominion of a great personage, com- 
monly designated among the Jews by the appellation of the Mes- 
siah. 

It is hardly necessary for us to remind the reader that there was 
no formal recognition of the inspired prophets, as official persons, 
under the constitutional enactments of the Jewish nation. Jeho- 
vah had, indeed, declared that such persons should be sent by him, 
but they were not to be recognized by the people as his messengers, 
until they had clear evidence of their supernatural commission, by 
foretelling future events, or exhibiting a sign such as Deity alone 
could enable them to perform. See pages 139,159. 

The most remarkable feature in the history of the inspired pro- 
phets, is the fact, that of all those whose writings are preserved in 
the Bible, Jeremiah and Ezekiel alone, were of the priestly order; 
all the others being simple laymen, as far as we can ascertain the 
fact. 

This very remarkable circumstance, gives rise to many views of 
immense importance towards appreciating the actual truth of the 
Mosaical dispensation; for by the history of the Bible, and the pro- 
phetical writings, we ascertain the important fart, that there exist- 



191 

ed at all times, or with small intervals between them, during the 
continuance of the Jewish state, until about four hundred years be- 
fore Christ, a series of individuals who claimed divine inspiration, 
and who were, nevertheless, wholly unconnected with the Jewish 
ecclesiastical establishment. This class of men, as they performed 
the most brilliant actions related in the Bible, and made known all 
the communications of Jehovah; so, in those facts, they must be re- 
garded as affording a most important mean to ascertain the true foun- 
dation of the priesthood, for with the ecclesiastical function, it is 
evident, the prophets seem to interfere very remarkably. 

That the reader may fairly commence the present scrutiny, we 
must remind him that all the enactments regulating the Jewish 
Church, were made in the days of Moses, and that after his time, until 
the advent, nothing was ever added or subtracted from that estab- 
lishment by any asserted divine authority. Hence, from its origi- 
nal constitution by Moses, the Jewish church was at all times, fully 
and divinely constituted, to make general or special atonement for 
every sin and transgression whatever. The functions of the priests, 
their sacrifices, and even their vestments, had been all appointed by 
law, under the sanction of God himself. Apparently, therefore, 
there existed no necessity for any further supernatural communica- 
tion on religious subjects, and hence it would seem, according to a 
common judgment on the facts, that the office of prophet in its 
inspired function, was altogether superogatory, unless it was indeed 
collusive with a knavish priesthood, who might thus, from time to 
time, inflame the public superstition with the exhibition of mira- 
cles, in order to establish or confirm their authority over the 
nation. 

We shall, however, be enabled with very little trouble, to vindi- 
cate the prophets from any charge of collusion with the priesthood, 
as also of ascertaining their real character, by appreciating the 
following circumstances. 

By the institutions of Moses, the tribe of Levi was set apart for 
the performance of ecclesiastical duties, and the family of Aaron 
alone supplied the members of the priesthood. To this tribe and 
family, therefore, alone belonged all the honors, and all the tempo- 
ralities, that Moses appointed for ecclesiastical purposes. Every 
other tribe was expressly excluded from any participation in the 
duties or privileges of the Lcvitical body. 

But for the inspired prophets, who were, with but two excep- 
tions, all laymen, there was no provision made of any kind whatso- 
ever. They received no tithe, nor any other support; neither did 



192 

their spiritual commission give them any ex-officio dignity in the 
nation. They were, for the most part, retired in their habits of 
life, and often imcouth in their dress and manners. But, on these 
particulars, we cannot enter into details, for the prophets were of 
every class and condition of men, from the king to the husband- 
men, and sometimes female, as well as male. 

But though the prophets always urged the nation, in the most 
earnest manner, to a strict obser "ance of the institutions of 
Moses, yet it is abundantly evident, they could not have formed any 
party with the priesthood; for not only have they entirely abstained 
from commending the order;* but their writings are full of censures 
and denunciations against them, for transgressing the laws of Jeho- 
vah, and for failing in their moral duties towards the nation at 
large. It is hardly necessary to remark, that Jeremiah and Eze- 
kiel, the only two prophets taken from the priestly tribe, are as 
distinguished for their censures of the priesthood, as much as any 
other prophets. 

From this brief, though I should trust, sufficient view, it must 
appear impossible, that there could be any collusion between the 
prophets and the priesthood; as not only is there wanting any cir- 
cumstance whatever, to justify such a suspicion, but in reality, the 
prophets occupied a much higher ground in the divine economy, 
than the priesthood, for it was they alone who performed miracles; 
prophesied of futurity, and maintained, as was asserted, supernatu- 
ral communications with Jehovah, — honors which the priesthood 
never claimed. 

Having thus exhibited the inspired prophets to stand upon the 
peculiarity of their individual functions, and altogether unimpeach- 
able from any suspicious contingency of human interest in matters 
of wealth, of honor, or of official dignities, connected with Jewish 
society, and having, also, distinctly shown, that it is absurd to suppose 
that they could be leagued with a priesthood, whom they never com- 
mend, and continually censure in the most emphatic manner, we 
shall now proceed to show the absolute integrity of the prophets, in 
those particulars of their function, that brought them into contact 
with the civil governors of the land. For in the execution of their 
asserted divine commission, they stood before kings and rulers, 
as bringing them messages from God, either approving or condemn- 
ing them, according to their particular conduct. 

*I think there are but three individual priests, that are commended in the 
prophetical wi'itings. If there should be other instances, I have unintention- 
ally overlooked them. The passages, I allude to above; are, Isaiah xxii. 20 
&c. Haggai ii. 2. Zechariah iii. 1. &c. vi. 11. 



193 

As it would occupy too much space to exhibit all these instances 
in detail, we shall speak of them summarily, according to the three 
following conclusions, derived from a careful examination of the 
biblical writings. 

1st. In every instance where a king or ruler is censured, it was 
for having disregarded the institutions of Moses: such as adopting 
idolatrous practices, as having been guilty of certain breaches of 
morality, &;c. 

2d. In every instance where a king or ruler is commended, it was 
for conforming to the law of Moses, removal of idolatry, &c. 

3d. And in no instance whatever, was king or ruler condemned 
or applauded for his conduct to a prophet, in the first place, or to- 
wards the priesthood, in the second. 

The reader who may feel interest enough in this subject to exam- 
ine the Scripture, in order to ascertain the correctness of our pre- 
ceding assertions, need only read straight onwards, during the con- 
tinuance of the undivided kingdom of the Jewish people, to be 
convinced of the absolute integrity of the prophets, in every relation 
there made. But after the decease of Solomon, we have a condi- 
tion of things so very favorable for appreciating the political and 
religious integrity of the prophets, that we must request the reader 
to pursue their history after that time, under the guidance of the 
following exhibition of facts. 

Though the kingdom of Israel, who revolted from Rehoboam the 
son of Solomon, in great measure rejected the institutions of Moses, 
and especially those matters that concerned the sacerdotal order, yet 
they were not without a regular ministration of prophets, who con- 
tinually testified against the irreligion and wickedness of both kings 
and people. Revelations, as if from God, were continually made, 
and miracles were repeatedly exhibited by the prophets to tliis per- 
verse people. Yet during the ministration of the prophets, through- 
out the whole continuance of the kingdom of Israel, or for two 
hundred and sixty-eight years, they never in a single instance called 
on the people to return to their allegiance, to the house of David. 
But they strenuously urged them to repent of their idolatry and 
vices, that they should turn their hearts to God, and do those things 
that are commanded in the books of Moses. 

By such facts as these, it is incredible that the prophets, who 
appeared in the kingdom of Israel, were influenced either by polit- 
ical views of their own, or by those tliat might be supposed to inte- 
rest the monarchs of the kingdom of J udah. And this is further 
evident by the proceeding of those prophets who exercised Ihcir 
25 



194 

functions in the kingdom of Judah. For there, in perfect accordance 
of language and spirit, with those living in Israel, the prophets con- 
tinually reproached and denounced the kings, priests, and people of 
Judah, calling on them, in the very same language, to repent of their 
irreligious and vicious practices, to turn their hearts to God, and 
obey the commandment of Moses. 

It therefore seems to me, that nothing can be more distinctly 
exhibited than the fact of the personal integrity of the inspired pro- 
phets of Old Testament history. We have considered them in their 
singular position, as respected the priesthood; we have estimated their 
proceedings as connected with the politics of the Jewish people, and 
in every light, in which they can be examined, we are unable to dis- 
cern any circumstance, whatever, that can impeach their testimony, 
whether, as it concerns their own functions, or as exhibiting the fact, 
that the Jewish church was of divine constitution and appointment. 
Let us now exhibit, distinctly, the value of the testimony of the 
prophets on this latter subject. 

It is impossible to produce a single passage in the prophetical 
writings, in which a word is spoken agamst the office, honors, or 
subsistence of the Jewish priests, but against their personal cor- 
ruptions or immoralities, the passages are numerous, and in the 
most emphatic terms of condemnation. 

As the prophets strenuously urged the strict observance of all 
the commandments of Moses, and as they never claimed, in the 
remotest degree, any enjoyment of power or revenue for them- 
selves, it is impossible they can be charged with any party hostility 
to the priestly order. On the contrary, by upholding the Mosaical in- 
stitutions in all their integrity, they must be considered the direct de- 
fenders of the hierarchy, in all their particular privileges, as there 
appointed. If the priests were impostors, the prophets might, from 
their strong language, urging the observance of the Mosaical in- 
stitutions, be, at first sight, considered the agents or partizans of the 
priesthood: but it is impossible that any rational man can remain 
of that opinion, when it is found, that the prophets, openly and 
unhesitatingly, under the asserted authority of Jehovah himself, 
continually censure the priesthood for their corruptions and sins, 
and have not, in a single passage, commended the value or im- 
portance of their order.* 

* Collins, the deist, was so much struck with tlie amount of censure cast by 
the prophets upon the priesthood, that he terms them free thinkers; not dis- 
cerning that though the prophets censured the irreligion or the immorality of 
the priests, when they had thus transgressed, yet they universally sustained 
. the institutions of Moses, in the most urgent manner, as being constitutions 



195 

Here then, are two facts, which it is impossible to reconcile to- 
gether, if we suppose the priesthood to have advocated a system of 
imposture, but all is perfectly intellioible, when we state that the 
institutions of Moses were of divine appointment, though the 
priests personally, more or less, at various times, like other men, 
had become irreligious. The prophets, inspired by the same God 
who had revealed himself to Moses, speak not against the office of 
the priests, or against their functions, but against the corruptions 
and evil practices of the priests, personally. 

Any theory charging the institutions of Moses, as the contri- 
vance of an impostor, that does not harmoniously reconcile the his- 
tory of the priests and the prophets, as exhibited in the Bible, 
must be, ipso facto, absurd. 

As I apprehend, I have now sufficiently scrutinized the eccle- 
siastical constitutions of Moses, I propose, in this place, to close 
our examination on that subject, for 1 cannot but consider, we have 
exhibited an amount of evidence, sufficient to satisfy any reasonable 
man, that it is altogether incredible, that the Old Testament writ- 
ings can be the contrivance of an ecclesiastical fraud. 

To attain this result, we have scrutinized the institutions them- 
selves, and the ecclesiastical appointments of the priesthood, by the 
closest attention to those principles of human action, by which 
mankind are most influenced, by which human integrity is most 
tempted, and in which, every other priesthood has universally 
failed, according to the experience of all past ages. 

But notwithstanding the closest scrutiny, upon the admitted sus- 
picion that they might have been impostors, we have, nevertheless, 
been unable to find one single passage, by which we can mistrust 
the integrity of those persons, who founded the Jewish state, or 
those who have given us its history, and scheme of religion, in the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament. 

If to this actual amount of evidence, we further add, that the 
morality of the system itself, whether as estimated in its influences 
upon the consciences of indviduals, or upon the well being of society 
at large, positively embraces every principle and motive to moral 

of Jehovah. However, the notion of this writer is important, for even his 
superficial examination of the prophetical writings, was sufficient to show 
him, there could be no collusion between the prophets and the priest- 
hood. His observation, which I can oidy quote at second hand, is from 
Leland's View of Deistical Writers, i. 122." "Collins, speaking of the 'pro- 
phets, says, "they were great /rrc f/nnlccrs, and that they wrile with as groat 
liberty against the established religion of the Jews, (which the people looked 
on as the institution of tJod himseH,) as if they looked upon it all lo be im- 
posture." 



196 

conduct, that human wisdom has been able to discern in the uni- 
versal history of our race; how can any one, after such an exposi- 
tion, hesitate to admit, that the religious system, as taught in the 
Scriptures, as far as the honesty and integrity of the biblical 
writers is concerned, is wholly and absolutely free from any impu- 
tation of ecclesiastical fraud or contrivance. 

But in thus proving the Scriptures not to have been an eccle- 
siastical fraud and imposture, we prove them to be a true history of 
a divine revelation, for in all the multitude of imputations cast 
upon their claim of being the writings of men acting under the in- 
fluences of Jehovah, no infidel, or deist, has ever charged their com- 
position to any other persons than a knavish priesthood. But I trust 
we have sufficiently proved, that it is both incredible and absurd to 
the last degree, to suppose a knavish priesthood could have com- 
posed these books. 

If then a knavish priesthood positively did not compose or dic- 
tate the books of the Old Testament, what other class of knaves 
and impostors could have executed them? I think we have also 
sufficiently proved, that they could not have been dictated by politi- 
cal ambition, for the system itself is as positively hostile to any 
such scheme, as it is to the imputation of being a scheme of reli- 
gious imposture. 

Hence there is no possibility for any honest mind to escape the 
direct conclusion, that, as the moral integrity and disinterestedness 
of the biblical writers of the Old Testament, is wholly free from any 
sinister imputation, so their record and history, whether of sacred 
or natural things, is substantially true, i. e. these books can only be 
erroneous through accident or inadvertence, in matters and partic- 
ulars, to be corrected by a judicious criticism, which may, in some 
places, strike out, in others, insert more correct readings, or other- 
wise remedy the various accidents to which these ancient writings 
have been exposed. Nor let the Christian reader imagine, that in 
thus admitting the existence of errors in our copies of the Scrip- 
ture, that our faith in their accuracy as communicating divine 
truth, will be disturbed to the least degree, for as long as we can 
affirm them to be absolutely free from any imputation of selfish or 
interested exposition, to the benefit of any particular class of human 
beings, we may rest fully assured, that the reverence in which they 
have ever been held, has prevented any error or inaccuracy, which 
collation of manuscripts, and rational criticism cannot remedy. 

Hitherto the object of our discourse has been, to show what the 
Jewish priesthood were not, but having now sufficiently exhibited 
them under that head, there is an evident propriety, that we should 



197 

before \vc terminate our disquisition on this remarkable body of 
men, state wliat was their real position in the church, according to 
the appointments of Moses, which we cannot too often reiterate, 
were sanctioned by Jehovah himself. 

The only true and important function of the Jewish priesthood, 
was in offering the sacrifices that Jehovah had appointed, whether 
for the sins of the nation, or for the expiation of individual penitents. 

All their other functions and exercises were but contingent, and 
arose upon the theory that they were a pure and holy body of men 
engaged continually in religious service before the immediate pres- 
ence of Jehovah, of which the Schekinah was a symbolical exhibi- 
tion. As such, they were judges of personal defilements, the ad- 
ministration of the waters of jealousy, &c. The blessing the peo- 
ple in the name of the Lord on the appointed festivals, was also a 
stated part of their duties, but not one that they had any power to 
bestow or dispense with at their pleasure. 

Therefore the true official position of the priesthood was alone 
within the boundaries of the temple, or of those consecrated places 
where the ark was deposited before the building of the temple, and 
it was only on the occurrence of accidental circumstances, that they 
were called on, officially, to leave the precincts of the holy places. 

Though there are a few passages in the Scriptures that seem to imply 
the priesthood should instruct the laity, yet I apprehend those passages 
only signify that the priest should rightly inform the people con- 
cerning those things which required the co-operation of the priest 
with the act of the layman, such as in offering a sacrifice, or even 
as to the significance and right administration of circumcision, the 
passover, &c. 

But that the priesthood ever administered instruction to the peo- 
ple in a general manner, such as is done by our preachers of the 
gospel, can hardly be affirmed. On the contrary, as far as we can 
infer any thing from the biblical writings, it would seem to be im- 
possible they could have exercised any such function.* 

In the first place, they certainly had no direct authority to teach the 
laity, and in case they ever did so, their instruction had no weight 
of official authority as being from the priesthood, for the law itself, 

* There is a single passage in the Old Testament, (2 Chron. xvii. 7 to 10,) 
which states that Jehoshaphat sent a commission to certain great officers of 
his kingdom to teach the people the law of God, and which was probably ef- 
fected by the priests and Levites, that he directed to accompany these commis- 
sioners. This transaction can only be considered a pious act of the king's de- 
vising, and not a duty pertaining to the priesthood, or officially exercised by 
them. 



196 

and the formal annunciation made by Moses on the promulgation of 
the law to the people at large, authorized every individual to deter- 
mine the obligations of the law for himself. This subject the read- 
er may remember we exhibited in its remarkable peculiarity, at 
page 158, when we attempted to show the significance of the phrase, 
"It is not in heaven." 

Though the Jewish people are continually reproached in the Bi- 
ble for not obeying the recommendations of the prophets, I am un- 
aware of a single passage that reproaches them for having been dis- 
obedient to the teaching or instructions of the priesthood. 

I apprehend we shall arrive at the same result, by considering the 
constitution of the Jewish synagogues. Here the services of the 
priesthood were never required, but elders, mere laymen, selected by 
the congregation themselves, prayed, read the law, expounded it to 
the audience, and exhorted them to an obedience of its requirements. 
Though these elders had no authority whatever, beyond what the 
people may have conceded to their learning or piety, yet we find 
they did possess great influence with the nation, and taught many 
false doctrines which were censured by our Saviour. 

Our Saviour remarks expressly, that the Scribes and the Phari- 
sees sat in Moses's seat, i. e. it was they who interpreted the law, 
but he says nothing of the priesthood either as possessing, or as ex- 
ercising such power. He continually upbraids the Scribes and Phari- 
sees with their false doctrines and erroneous teaching, but there is 
not a single passage in the New Testament in which any false doc- 
trine is attributed to the teaching of the priesthood. 

But as I cannot go into any antiquarian investigation of this mat- 
ter, I alone base my view of the priesthood in the special exhi- 
bitions of the Pentateuch. As there detailed, most certainly their 
peculiar function was to burn incense before God, and to make the 
sacrifices required by the law. This was their important and sa- 
cred duty, and by which they made, and alone made, expiation for 
sin, whether individual or national. Their otiier functions were too 
accidental and too unimportant to embarrass us, in any manner, as 
to their actual and true official position, as being the medium alone 
through which sin was expiated. 

In all other matters the Jewish priesthood had either none, or a 
very limited importance, and most certainly had nothing to do with 
the great purposes of Jehovah towards preparing for the future es- 
tablishment of Christianity, unless their mere typical function be so 
considered. Every annunciation of the Messiah, and ever\' com- 
munication of God's future purposes with regard to his kingdom, 



199 

and every particular connected with that subject, was alone pro- 
mulgated by the prophets. The priesthood stood always in the same 
position that had been assigned them by Moses, and they fell with 
the temple and its peculiar service. The ministration of the particu- 
lars concerning the Messiah, as exercised by the prophets, increased 
in brightness with every successive age until it shone forth into per- 
fect day. 

These particulars concerning the priesthood are, in themselves, 
of importance, and we trust the reader will not forget them, as we 
may have to make a very important application of them in a future 
page. 

Though I have now terminated our discourse upon the divine con- 
stitution of the Jewish church, as involved in the history of the 
priesthood, we shall not close this chapter at the present time, not 
only because I deem it improper to make any formal distinction be- 
tween Judaism and Christianity, but also because I have not yet 
touched upon that subject so largely contemplated in the Mosaical 
dispensation, and so largely announced by the prophets, concerning 
the future advent of the Messiah, and the establishment of his mor- 
al domination over the nations of the earth. 

Standing, therefore, as the prophets do upon the foundations of 
the Jewish church, we cannot, with any propriety, close this chap- 
ter until we have exhibited with all distinctness, the theory of that 
important subject, whose future procession they regarded with such 
boundless emotions, and which it was the high prerogative of their 
office to announce to mankind. 

Notwithstanding the religious glory of the Jewish church in its 
divine constitution, the numerous miracles accomplished by its pro- 
phets and the special providence with which Jehovah continually gov- 
erned their affairs, whether secular or ecclesiastic, and notwith- 
standing that justifiable prejudice with which the Old Testament 
Jews regarded themselves, as a nation that Jehovah had chosen 
before all other nations of men — yet nothing was more distinctly 
admitted among them, than that there should, in a remote pe- 
riod of time, arise a condition of things under the good providence 
of Jehovah, which should be infinitely superior, both in glory and 
prosperity, to the happiest times they had ever witnessed under the 
Mosaic economy. 

From the earliest ages of Jewish history, a belief prevailed among 
that people, under the authority of divine revelation, that a glorious 
personage should arise among them, who would eventually establish 
a most gracious dominion over all the nations of the earth. How- 



200 

ever determinate their belief might be, as to the commencement of 
its auspicious influence upon their own nation, it was equally a part 
of their theory, that ultimately all mankind should be included in its 
advantages and blessings. 

The coming of this extraordinary personage, known among the 
Jews by the title of the Messiah, constitutes a prominent theme with 
all those Jewish prophets whose writings have reached our times, and 
it is impossible for the reader not to be struck with the remarkable 
changes in the style of the prophetical writers, whenever they touch 
on this particular subject. In their addresses to the Jewish people, 
or to their kings or priests, they are, at various times, and accord- 
ing to their constitutional temperament, either indignant in their 
censure, warm and affectionate in their entreaties, calm, though im- 
portunate, when reasoning with them on the folly and perverseness 
of their conduct: but should they happen to touch upon any subject 
that leads to a consideration of the Messiah's kingdom, the prophet 
seems to forget the theme then before him, and in exulting antici- 
pation dwells on the glory of that auspicious reign. These glowing 
anticipations of future time, strike us with the greater force, as being 
contrasted with the troublous times, and calamities amiounced as im 
pending over the mighty kingdoms of the ancient world, the pro 
phesied desolation of Judea and Jerusalem, the captivity and oppres 
sion of the people. In the midst of these melancholy amiunciations 
the prophets continually burst forth with the consolatory statement 
that these evils and calamities shall ultimately cease, and that with the 
establishment of the Messiah's kingdom, universal blessedness and 
peace shall prevail; that all crime and wickedness shall cease; sor- 
row and sighing shall be heard no more; death itself shall be de- 
stroyed; and that the righteous shall dwell in the light and presence 
of Jehovah, unsusceptible of change forever more. 

"Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruc- 
tion within thy borders, but thou shalt call thy walls salvation and 
thy gates praise. 

The sun shall be no more thy light by day, neither for brightness 
shall the moon give light unto thee, but the Lord shall be unto thee 
an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. 

Thy sun shall no more go down: neither shall thy moon withdraw 
itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlastinfj lifjht, and the days of 
thy mauniing shall be ended." Isaiah Ix. IS, &;c. 

The theory of the Messiah's universal kingdom, its boundless 
blessings, and the extraordinary contingencies that should occur 
whilst it progressed to its perfect establishment among the nations 



201 

of the earth, make this subject an invaluable test by whicli the in- 
spiration of the biblical writings may be exhibited. 

According to the Scripture, the doctrine concerning the Messiaii 
was promulgated to the original parents of mankind. These, tiirough 
the temptation of an evil spirit, having broken the commandment 
of Jehovah, incurred the penalty of temporal death, as the punish- 
ment of their disobedience. Yet at the time of the fall, Jehovah 
promised them a triumph over their spiritual adversary, through one 
of their own posterity, and to whom, in after ages, the title of "the 
Messiah" was appropriated. 

This promise, therefore, as recorded in the Scriptures, belongs 
not to the Jews, but to the whole human race, as being the pos- 
terity of those individuals who received the promise. And though 
Jehovah assured Abraham and other patriarchs of the Jews, that 
the Messiah should be produced from them, and in their direct de- 
scendants, yet in every promise made to such individuals, it is ex- 
pressly announced, conformably to the original appointment, that 
the advent of this great personage, should be for the blessedness of 
all the nations of the earth. 

In after ages, when Jehovah alone sent his prophets to the Jew- 
ish people, any further revelation on this subject was necessarily 
confined to those who heard or read their communications. It is, 
therefore, alone in the books pertaining to the Jewish church, that 
we are able to discern, with distinctness, what especial matters were 
contemplated by Jehovah for the benefit of the human race, at a 
time when all nations, except the Jews, had fallen into the grossest 
idolatry.* 

This prophesied blessedness of the whole human race, it is im- 
possible that any sane mind can attribute to a scheme of knavish 
imposture, either on the part of the prophets or ecclesiastics. For 
it is inconceivable that the Jews, whose rational pride it was to 

*But however gross and depraved the heathen nations s^radually became, yet 
they never lost sight altogether of the primitive doctrine concerning the 
advent of the.Messiah. The mystic death and revivification of Osiris, of Tha- 
muz or Adonis, and of Bacchus, among the more ancient nations; of Balder, 
among the Scandinavians; of the son of the king of heaven, among the Tar- 
tars; of Purnsha, among the Hindoos; the communion of the Mexicans, of the 
people of Cuatimala, of the Peruvians, &c., have all so strong a reference to 
the life or death of our Redeemer, that it is impossihle we can attribute any 
other origin to these extraordinaiy mytho!oii;iral inslitutions, but to traditions 
derived from the common parents of the human race. See on tliese subjects 
Bryant and others, but especially various works of the Hevercnd Mr. Faber. 
I have also briefly exhibited this subject in the Appendix to my Philos. and 
Antiq. Researches on America, and have added some particulars unknown to 
previous writers on the subject. 
26 



202 

consider themselves Jehovah's peculiar and only people, should, in 
opposition to the essential principle of that pride and exultation, 
invent and promulgate the doctrine, that there was a time coming, 
when all the heathen should be called into the joyful prosperity of 
the Messiah's kingdom. 

That it is utterly impossible any selfish or domineering scheme 
could be meditated under such an extraordinary promulgation, 
must be very evident by the fact, that the prophets have distinctly 
intimated that the Jews should, in the first instance, reject the 
Messiah, and that the Gentiles should receive him. In conse- 
quence of which, the prophets have informed us, that the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles from their idolatry, would be the first fruits of 
the Messiah's advent, and as such, they should receive the first 
blessedness of his kingdom. It was expressly foretold, that the 
Jews themselves should not participate in that prosperity, until 
they had endured a long and grievous exile from their country, 
with all the additions of a cruel and oppressive servitude. 

Surely no other proof ought to be required to convince any 
honest mind, that the theory of the Messiah is wholly free from 
any imputation of being the suggestion or contrivance of Jewish 
knaves or impostors. For it not only disregarded all national views 
of bigotry or patriotism, in thus anticipating the universal happi- 
ness of the heathen nations, but all incredulity must be overpowered 
when it is distinctly implied, that they themselves should forfeit the 
favor and protection of Jehovah, at the very time that the Gentiles 
should be accepted and blessed of him, to the consummation of 
time. 

As it would be useless to merely refer the common class of 
readers to those passages, in which these remarkable particulars 
are announced, I shall here introduce a number of extracts from 
the prophetical writings, which shall not only exhibit in a forcible 
manner, all these singular facts, so necessary for estimating the 
credibility of the old Jewish church, but also as involving the very 
foundation upon which Christianity has been built. 

But in consequence of the length of the prophecies in many in- 
stances, I shall only quote their substance, wholly omitting the 
metaphorical language and figures with which they are delivered. 
In making these extracts, I shall alone use those that distinctly 
shadow forth the Messiah, omitting those that are now applied by 
accommodation. For as these last could not have been considered 
prophetical of the Messiah before the advent, so our present under- 
taking is especially confined to an exhibition of this subject, as it 
might be understood anterior to that time. 



203 

By this method of proceeding, wc shall vindicate, not only the 
theory of the Messiah's kingdom upon the Jewish foundation, but 
we further shall be better able to comprehend the actual proceeding 
of the Jews at the advent of Jesus Christ. This circumstance is of 
great importance, and which has been very much misunderstood, 
by the error of supposing that all the prophecies, whether direct or 
accommodated, as we now understand them, were considered to be 
applicable to the Messiah before the advent. This notion is very in- 
correct, and has occasioned no small perplexity. 

As I have, by our preceding arguments, vindicated the biblical 
writings of the Old Testament from every imputation of being the 
work of knaves and impostors, it must clearly follow that the seve- 
ral books, of which the Scriptures are composed, were written at 
the times, and by those individuals to whom they are described. If 
there be any difficulty in ascertaining certain particulars on these 
subjects, they are merely matters of criticism, that concern nothing 
of absolute truth. 

But on the authority of the several points, which we have estab- 
lished in preceding pages, we shall now prefix chronological dates 
to the prophecies of the Old Testament, that foretold the coming 
of the Messiah, that we may exhibit the argument to be thence de- 
duced in all the force to which it is entitled. But we shall, hereaf- 
ter, sustain the argument derivable from the prophecies on this 
subject, by arguments independent of any previous discussion. 

Chronological enumeration of Old Testament prophecies, concern- 
ing the Messiah. 

First promise made by God to Adam, "that the seed of the wo- 
man should bruise the serpent's head," at the same time announc- 
ing that he should be bruised in the heel Gen. iii. 15. 

Promise to Abraiiam, B. C. 2078* that in his seed all the fam- 
ilies or nations of the earth should be blessed. Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 18. 

Promise to Isaac, B. C. 2000, that in his seed all the nations of 
the earth shovldbe blessed. Gen. xxvi. 4. 

Promise to Jacob, B. C. 1916, that in his seed all the families of 
the earth should be blessed. Gen. xxviii. 14. 

Jacob announces, B. C. 1816, that tlie sceptre of government 
should not depart iVom the tribe of Judah, until Shiloh, (the Mcs- 

*Tlie cliioMoIogical systom I liavc followed is that of tlie Rev. Mi. IlaKs, 
as set forth by him iu his Analysis of Ancient Chronology, Geography, His- 
tory, and Prophecy. 



204 

siah,) should come, and that all nations should be gathered under 
his dominion. Gen. xlix. 10. 

Moses announces, B. C. 1608, that Jehovah would raise up a 
TROPHET like himself, and that God would punish those who 
should disregard his teaching. 

Moses announces, B. C. 1608, the advent of the Messiah in fu- 
ture judgment, according to the Septuagint, in Deut. xxxii. 43. This 
passage has been lost from the Hebrew text since that translation was 
made, and it is so abrupt in the Greek, that I cannot but suppose 
that some preceding verse or verses had been lost before that ver- 
sion was made. 

David, king of Israel, who flourished about the year B. C. 1060, 
has left several remarkable prophecies concerning the Messiah in 
the book of Psalms, both direct and accommodated. The following 
are of the former kind: 

Psalm ii. David here apostrophises a combination of the heathen 
and the Jews against the Messiah, but Jehovah holds them in derision, 
and promises his son, (the Messiah,) that he will give him the hea- 
then and the uttermost parts of the earth for an inheritance. It is, 
then, announced that he should break all human political constitu- 
tions into pieces, as an earthen vessel is shivered by the blow of an 
iron bar. 

Psalm xlv. David exhibits the Messiah as a king, advancing pros- 
perous and triumphant because of his "truth and righteousness." 
He then addresses him in those remarkable words, "thy throne, O 
God, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right scep- 
tre," i. e. a sceptre of rectitude, synecdoche, for a righteous and just 
government. 

Psalm Ixxii. David predicts the dominion of the Messiah to the 
ends of the earth, the submission of all kings to him, and that all 
nations should serve him. He announces that the Messiah shall 
break in pieces the oppressor, and shall judge, with righteousness, 
the poor and the needy . That he shall redeem their souls from deceit 
and violence, and that their blood (lives) should be precious in his 
sight. "His name shall endure for ever; his name shall be continued 
as long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in him; all nations shall 
call him blessed." 

Psalm ex. David here represents Jehovah as telling the Messiah 
to sit at his right hand until he should subdue his enemies; and then 
metaphorically exhibits the places of heathenism as filled with the 
bodies of the dead. 

In this Psalm, Jehovah constitutes the Messiah a priest for ever, af- 



205 

ter the order of Melchizedcck; thereby implying that the priests who 
were constituted after the order of Aaron, were not to be a perpet- 
ual order. This circumstance is strongly urged in the epistle to 
Hebrews, chaps, v. to viii. 

Isaiah, who flourished about the year B. C. 725, abounds in pro- 
phetic views of the Messiah*s kingdom; I quote alone those that are 
direct in their application. 

Isaiah, in chaps, ii. iii. iv. announces that " in the last days,'''' a 
phrase among the Jews, synonymous with the days of the Mes- 
siah, that the nations of the earth should rush, as it were, to the 
temple of Jehovah, at Jerusalem; for from thence should his law 
and his ordinances go forth to the ends of the earth; that the Mes- 
siah shall judge among the nations, (i. e. the Gentiles,) and that at 
his rebuke men should beat their swords into plough- shares, and 
their spears into pruning knives. ^^Nation shall no more fight 
against nation, neither shall there be war any more." 

Before this blessed state shall be established, evils and desolations 
of the greatest kind shall befall Judea and Jerusalem, but ultimate- 
ly, when the people should become purified, they should, with their 
city, be eminently exalted in the sight of the world. 

Isaiah, chaps, viii. ix. predicts that a great intellectual darkness 
should overspread the land of Judea, and that suddenly the light 
and salvation of the Messiah should break forth "in the land of 
Zebulon, and the land of Naphtali, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of 
the Gentiles." Here the Messiah is promised in very remarka- 
ble language. 

"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Won- 
derful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Father of the everlasting 
age, the Prince of Peace.* 

Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no 
end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and 
to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even 
forever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this." 

Then ensues a severe denunciation against Israel, which, I ap- 
prehend, prophetically anticipates the great wickedness of the Jew- 
ish people, at the time of our Redeemer's advent. 

Isaiah, chap. xi. announces that the Messiah shall be of the stem 
of Jesse, (the father of David,) and that his kingdom should be es- 
tablished upon earth in unexampled righteousness and peace. Even 

* This is the translation of Bishop Louth, vvliich, though perhaps not alto- 
gether correct, is preferable to that of our common version. 



206 

the lion, the wolf, and the poisonous reptile shall Ixjcome harmless 
and playful. The banner of the Messiah shall be displayed in the 
sight of all nations, and that to it the Gentiles would flock. After 
the establishment of this kingdom the Jewish people should be re- 
covered from their dispersion among the nations of the earth. 

The remaining portion of this prophecy seems to imply a judg- 
ment of God should take place upon certain Gentile nations, who 
shall, in the end, attempt to oppose the Jewish re-settlement of their 
ancient country. 

Isaiah, chap xxxii. foretells great blessings in the righteous and 
merciful judgments of the Messiah, reigning as a king in the earth. 
But previously he declares that the land of Judea should be greatly 
afflicted, and the people suffer grievously, "until the Spirit be poured 
on them from on high." 

Isaiah, chap. xxxv. An enraptured view, anticipating the unex- 
ampled happiness and peace of the Messiah's kingdom, and abound- 
ing with glowing metaphorical expressions. The chapter terminates 
with announcing the joyous return of the Jews from their captivity 
and exile. 

Isaiah, xlii. Jehovah is represented as exhibiting the Messiah 
to the world as one in whom his soul delighted, and as one who 
should bring judgment and light to the Gentiles. 

"He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set judgment 
in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law. 

I, the Lord, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine 
hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the peo- 
ple, ^br a light to the Gentiles; 

To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the pris- 
on, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." 

Isaiah, chaps, xlix. 1. li. The Messiah is exhibited as inviting 
the Gentiles to listen to him, and complains that the Jews had re 
jected him when he ought to have anticipated the most favorable 
reception from them. Jehovah is then represented as telling him 
that, though Israel had refused to be gathered under his government, 
that this rejection was a little thing as compared with the glory he 
should receive from the Gentiles, and as exhibiting the salvation of 
God to the ends of the earth. 

After this merciful dispensation to the heathen; Zionis represent- 
ed as mourning that Jehovah had forsaken her. Immediately he 
extends his merciful favor to her, and announces a glorious return 
from a state of terrible desolation and captivity. 

Isaiah, chaps, lii. liii. announces the advent of the Messiah, and 



207 

then follows a most remarkable description of his person and 
ministry. He is exhibited as being despised and rejected of men, 
as a man of sorrow and of grief, that he was bruised and wounded 
for human transgression, and as seeming to be smitten of God. He 
is represented as being imprisoned, and of being put to death, and 
that his soul should be an offering for sin. 

Nevertheless, Jehovah declares that the Messiah shall see the 
great blessings that shall follow his ministry, that he shall prolong 
his days, and be satisfied with the travail of his soul. 

Micah, the prophet, who was cotemporary with Isaiah, chap. v. 
foretells that the Messiah should come forth, or be born at the vil- 
lage of Bethlehem, and that he should rule and govern in the 
strength and majesty of Jehovah, unto the ends of the earth. 

The latter part of this prophecy announces a great judgment 
upon the heathen, but whether it is to be understood literally or 
metaphorically, I cannot pretend to determine. 

Jeremiah, who lived B. C. 639, in chapter xxiii. communicates 

the promise of God concerning the Messiah, in the following terms: 

"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto 

David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and 

shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 

In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, 
and this is his name, whereby he shall be called: the Lord our 

RIGHTEOUSNESS." 

Jeremiah, in chapter xxxiii. again recites this prophecy, in the 
same language and metaphors. 

The prophet Daniel, who lived at Babylon during the seventy 
years' captivity, began to prophecy about the year, B. C. 605. 

In chapter ii. of his prophetical writing, is explained a vision of 
Nebuchadnezzar, in which the great monarchies or governments of 
the world are exhibited to us in their succession. After having 
announced the Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman domination 
over the world, the prophet announces, that they should all pass away, 
and that Jehovah should establish a government, (that of the Mes- 
siah,) "which shall never be destroyed, but shall break in pieces, 
and consume all the preceding kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." 

Daniel, in chap. vii. records a vision of Jehovah to him, which 
again represents the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, 
and finally he exhibits the coming of the Messiah to his kingdom, 
in the following words: 

"I saw in the night, visions, and behold one like the son of a man 



208 

came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, 
(Jehovah) and they brought him near, before him. 

"And there was given him (the Messiah) dominion, and glory, 
and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve 
him, his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass 
away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." 

It was from this and the preceding prophecy, that John the Bap- 
tist and others took the phrase, of "the kingdom of heaven being 
at hand," and "that the reign of the kingdom of heaven was about 
to begin." They are expressions simply synonymous with saying, 
the Messiah was about to commence his reign. 

Daniel, in chap. ix. communicates the most definite prophecy of 
the Scripture, concerning the time when the Messiah should come 
upon earth. It further informs us, that the Messiah "should be cut 
off," and foretells the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusa- 
lem by the Romans. The following verses are too important to be 
epitomized. The angel who communicated with Daniel, thus in- 
forms him: 

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting 
righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint 
the most holy, (i. e. the Messiah.) 

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the 
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah 
the prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, 
the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. 

And after threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, 
but not for himself, and the people of the prince that shall come, 
(the Romans,) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end 
thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations 
are determined. 

And he (Messiah) shall confirm the covenant with many for one 
week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and 
the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, 
he shall make it desolate, even unto the consummation, and that 
determined, shall be poured upon the desolate." 

The prophet Ezekiel, who was among the captives of Judea, car- 
ried to Babylon about the year B. C. 586, represents (chap, xxxiv.) 
Jehovah as promising the Messiah to the Jews under the symbolic 
name of David, and as communicating to them great peace and 
blessedness. In his day there shall be an entire removal of the 



209 

savage beasts of the forests, an abundant production of ail the fruits 
of the earth, and an everlasting deliverance from the heathen, 
through the power of Jehovah. 

Ezekiel, in chap, xxxvii. prophecies of the ultimate restoration 
of the Jewish people through the might and power of Jehovah. He 
promises them a great deliverance, and that the Messiah here also 
symbolized under the name of David, shall be king over them and 
their prince for ever. The heathen also shall see that Jehovah has 
sanctified Israel, in the establishment of his tabernacle among them 
for evermore. 

The prophet Haggai, performed the functions of his ministry, 
during those times immediately consequent to the return from the 
Babylonian captivity, or about the year B. C. 535. His prophecy 
is very important, as limiting the time of the Messiah's advent to the 
duration of the second temple, afterwards destroyed by the RomanSo 
This prophecy, since that destruction, is an insurmountable objec- 
tion to the hypothesis of the Jews that the Messiah is yet to come. 

The prophecy of Haggai is as follows: chap. ii. 6 to 9. 

"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; yet once, it is a little while, and 
I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry 
land; 

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations 
(the Messiah) shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith 
the Lord of Hosts. 

The glory of this house shall be greater than of the former, (i. 
e. the splendid temple of Solomon,) saith the Lord of Hosts, and in 
this place, will I give peace, saith the Lord of Hosts." 

The prophet Zachariah, who lived about the same time witli 
Haggai, announces that the Messiah should come to the Jewish 
people in a very humble slate, notwithstanding his glorious attri- 
butes. 

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout O daughter of Je- 
rusalem, behold thy king (the Messiah) cometh unto thee, he is 
just, and having solvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon 
a colt, the foal of an ass." 

And I (Jehovah) will cut oft' the chariot from Ephraim, and the 
horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut oft! And he 
(the Messiah) shall speak peace vnto the heathen, and his domin- 
ion shall be from sea even to vsea, and fiom the river (Euphrates) 
even to the ends of the earth." 

Malachi, the last of the prophets of the Old 'iVsffinient, is sup- 
posed to have written his prophesy about the vear B. C. 420. 
27 



210 

In chap. iii. he announces the Messiah under tlie apiK^Uation of 
the "Messenger of the Covenant," and that he should suddenly 
come to the temple, and that the Jewish church should be sub- 
jected to a most searching scrutiny and purification. 

"But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand 
when he appeareth, for he is like a refiner's fire, and like the ful- 
ler's soap." 

Malachi, in the fourth chapter, further announces a day of great 
calamity and judgment shall fall upon the nation, but that deliverance 
shall be extended to such as fear the name of Jehovah, and that 
they shall be made to triumph over the wicked. Jehovah further 
promises to send Elijah, the prophet, to convert the hearts of men, 
lest on the coming of his great day, he find the world so corrupted, 
that he shall be induced to smite the whole earth with a curse. 

Such are the leading prophecies of the Scriptures concerning 
the advent of the Messiah, and the eminently glorious and peace- 
ful dominion, that he should establish among the nations of the 
earth. 

But the reader must not, at the present stage of our exhibition, 
regard these prophecies as a Christian, well instructed in their ful- 
filment, he must endeavor to realise to himself, what conclusion he 
would have made from them, had he lived before the manifes- 
tation of Jesus Christ. 

From the metaphorical language used in conveying these pro- 
phetical annunciations, I apprehend no one would have been able to 
anticipate more than a very general result, the substance of which 
would have been, that the Messiah at one time triumphant, at 
another humiliated, should ultimately prevail over all his enemies, 
and establish a government upon the earth, abounding in universal 
peace and blessedness. In this happy condition of things, the 
Gentiles should all be participators, and that the universal worship 
of Jehovah should prevail throughout the globe. That war, and 
all its desolations, should cease, and that every evil and oppression 
among the children of men, should be removed for ever. 

The language of the prophecies is very general, and very little 
restricted, as to any literal fulfilment, except the vision of Daniel 
concerning the seventy iveeks, there is scarcely another prophecy 
that is not more or less undetermined as to time, and that is not 
further susceptible either of literal or of metaphorical fulfilment. 
The prophecies also cover an immense lapse of time in the process 
of their fulfilment; for I apprehend that most of them extend into 
the future life, though they commenced with the literal advent of 
the Redeemer. 



211 

In short, it seems to me, that all a religious Jew ought to have 
anticipated from the prophecies, would have been, that Jehovah 
had made a great preparation for the peace and happiness of man- 
kind, through the instrumentality of the Messiah, but that the 
means by which it should be ultimately accomplished, were alto- 
gether incomprehensible. And though the prophets so distinctly 
foretel that the Jews would reject the Messiah, and that the Gen- 
tiles should be taken first into covenant with him, t apprehend it 
would be altogether impossible for any Jew, anterior to the advent, 
to have appreciated that circumstance. 

But let us now ask, to what selfish end or purpose, this great ma- 
chinery, announcing the Messiah, with which every Jewish prophet has 
largely concerned himself, could be possibly directed? Was it to ac- 
complish any great political scheme? Was it to encourage the nation 
to mighty efforts in wars of conquest and ambition? Or to what end 
could it be directed? — I know not what the wildness of conjecture 
may suggest, but this much is abundantly clear: the Jewish nation 
had underwent six servitudes from surrounding nations. Their 
monarchy had been divided into two hostile governments, repeat- 
edly engaged in mutual desolations. The kings of Assyria and 
Babylon carried away into captivity their respective people, and 
afler the return of Judah from Babylon, the oppressive hand of Greek 
and Roman had fallen on them; and yet, during all these political 
afflictions, neither priest, nor king, had ever attempted the least ap- 
plication of the prefigured Messiah to excite the national prejudices 
of the people to revolution or war. Oppressed and impatient as the 
Jews were under the various masters that subjugated them, and 
holding, as we conceive, many erroneous views concerning the man- 
ner in which the Messiah's kingdom should be established, yet they 
never presumed to anticipate his coming, until the individual had 
actually appeared, to whom all their prophecies, in our belief, had 
distinctly pointed from the beginning of the world. 

Yet, further on this subject, the glorious and triumphant kingdom 
to be established by the Messiah, in no instance required the aiding 
hands of the Jewish nation. In no one instance, does a prophet call 
on them to be in readiness to render military service to Messiah the 
prince. In no one instance, are the swords, the valor, or the pat- 
riotism of the nation apostrophised, or even alluded to by a single 
prophet: whatever was the glory or the power of his sovereignty, it 
was to be accomplished by him alone, invested with power from Je- 
hovah on high. 

To what selfish purpose then, could the theory of the prefigured 



212 

Messiah be directed, when the Jews, instead of being instructed to 
co-operate with him by personal service, were alone taught that 
their salvation should come, and the re-establishment of their king- 
dom be accomplished, through the overwhelming influence of super- 
natural agencies alone. For the prophets invariably speak of their 
exile from Judea, their dispersion among the nations of the earth, 
and enduring all calamity and oppression at the time that their de- 
liverance should be effected. 

But, surely, we have said enough on this subject, let any reason- 
able sceptic ponder on this remarkable feature in the Jewish religion 
exhibiting the doctrine of the Messiah, and all its extraordinary con- 
tingencies, — let him consider that this doctrine depends not upon 
any one prophetic annunciation, but upon the combined exhibitions 
of all the prophetic writers, each of whom communicate particulars 
to the general description, not mentioned by the others. Let him 
then consider that these prophetic intimations commenced with the 
first parents of mankind, and were continually extended by the reve- 
lation of new particulars, from time to time, until about four hundred 
years prior to the manifestation of the individual thus prefigured. 
Then the prophetic vision ceased, leaving the recorded annuncia- 
tions in the hands of the Jewish nation, by which they were to 
verify the fulfilment of the revelations of the prophets, after the very 
last of these inspired messengers had been for centuries numbered 
with the dead. 

Let the sceptic then attempt to show that this machinery either 
originated, or was agitated by knavish priests or kings for selfish 
purposes. Let him also explain why the conversion of the Gentiles, 
to the worship of Jehovah, should be considered so glorious a con- 
summation to a scheme of priestly imposture, and, finally, let him 
explain why knaves and impostors should foretell, that the Jews 
should reject the Messiah when he should come, that they should en- 
dure grievous calamities, and that they should at last be received 
into that favor and mercy of their God, which the Gentiles had en- 
joyed during the most unhappy dispersion of the Jews themselves. 

It is now, however, time that we should close our views upon this 
subject, for, I trust, we have sufficiently vindicated, from all unrea- 
sonable surmises, the mere theory concerning the Messiah's king- 
dom, so largely announced by the inspired prophets. We shall, 
therefore, terminate this chapter with a few remarks, that may en- 
able the reader to enter upon the discussion contained in the ensuing 
chapter. 

From the repeated and abundant revelations, made by the inspired 



213 

prophets, concerning the advent and glorious triumj)hs of the Mes- 
siah, no belief was more firmly established in the minds of the Jew- 
ish people, during the continuance of their civil government, than 
that there was a day coming in the goodness and providence of God, 
when every thing blessed and happy should be communicated to 
them by their Messiah, and in which all the Gentile nations should 
become participants. Whatever ideas of national supremacy and 
aggrandizement, individuals among the Jewish people may have in- 
ferred from the metaphorical expressions of the prophets, yet cer- 
tainly, no religious Jew instructed in the Scriptures, either in past 
or present time could believe, that the influence of the Messiah's 
kingdom upon the Gentile world would be any thing else than one of 
the most unbounded benevolence and religious enjoyment. I do not 
think it at all necessary to establish this fact, for I know of none to 
dispute it, but as a matter of singular importance to our investiga- 
tion, I have endeavored to show what a large amount of happiness 
and prosperity was always contemplated to be in preparation for the 
Gentile world in the most ancient Jewish writings. And this fact 
must be ample proof to any considerate and honest reader, that there 
could be no selfishness of scheme implicated in a system, that over- 
looked all national prejudices, and anticipated with glowing enthu- 
siasm the conversion of the heathen nations, and the establishment 
of a kingdom on earth, in which war and its desolations should be 
unknown for ever. 

"And he (Messiah) shall judge among many people, and rebuke 
strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plough- 
shares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up 
a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; 

"But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig 
tree, and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of 
Hosts has spoken it." Micah iv. 3 and 4. 



CHAPTER X. 

ON THE PROMULGATION AND ESTxVBLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITV. 

At last, that series of mystic works was accomplished, that 
Daniel, the prophet, foretold should elapse between the rebuilding 
of the temple and the advent of "Messiah, the prince." The con- 
summation of the time thus predicted, became still more interesting 
in the circumstance, that Judea had now fallen under the domina- 
tion of Rome, and thus the inspired declaration of the patriarch 
Jacob, became consonant with that of the prophet Daniel in deter- 
mining this eventful period of time; '■'■The sceptre shall not depart 
from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh 
(the Messiah) come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people 
be." 

Whilst the Jewish people awaited in anxious expectation the im- 
portant events to be disclosed in the consummation of this prophetic 
period,* and anticipated the commencement of that glorious order 
of things, so long and so frequently announced to them by the in- 
spired messengers of Jehovah, there suddenly appeared among 
them, an individual, who, under the appellation of John the Bap- 
tist, came forth from the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, as a 
herald, the approach of the kingdom of God, and that the Messiah 
would soon be made manifest to the world. 

With great zeal, John the Baptist discharged the functions of 
bis peculiar mission, and whilst in the actual performance of his 
preparatory ministration, he received from the Spirit of God, that 

*That the Jews did expect the advent of the Messiah about this time, 
is so notorious, that the very heathen themselves were aware of their expec- 
tation, and appUed it to explain the origin of the war that terminated in their 
destruction. 

Suetonious says, "there was an ancient and general opinion famous through- 
out the Eastern nations, that the fates had determined tliat there should come 
out of Judea, those that should govern the world," and he adds, "tliat the 
Jews applying this to themselves, rebelled against the Roman power. 

Tacitus, remarks, "a great many were possessed with a persuasion, that it 
was contained in the ancient books of the priests, that at that time the East 
should prevail, and that they who should govern the world, were to come out 
of Judea." 

It seems scarcely necessary to add the testimony of Josephus, who states, 
"the Jews rebelled against the Romans, being encouraged by a famous pro- 
phecy in their Scripfures, that about that time, a great prince should be born 
among; them, that should rule the world." 



215 

supernatural intimation, by which he was enabled to point out the 
Messiah to that more devout portion of the Jewish people, who, in- 
fluenced by his preaching, endeavored to prepare themselves suita- 
bly to receive the "Desire of all nations." 

But nothing could be more contrary to the lofty expectation of 
the Jews, than the condition of the meek and humble Jesus of 
Nazareth, thus announced to them as the Messiah of whom so 
much had been spoken by the prophets, and whom they had so long 
anticipated as their deliverer from Roman domination and tyranny. 
Hence from the very commencement of his official ministration, 
he was mistrusted by the nation in general, and became, in an espe- 
cial manner, an offence to the dignitaries, the rabbis, and the priest- 
hood. The whole transactions of his life, as well as his doctrine, 
were entirely in opposition to what national prejudices had induced 
them to anticipate. For under the teaching of their presumptuous 
rabbis, they had forced the predictions of the prophets concerning 
the Messiah, into a scheme, that regarded alone the political pros- 
perity of the Jewish nation, and had overlooked altogether, that 
Jehovah himself, had purposes of his own to accomplish in the 
coming of this important personage. 

Though we are fully prepared to account for the incredulity of 
the Jews, and their rejection of the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to 
be considered the Messiah. Yet as this subject cannot be so well 
appreciated at the present time, as it can be after we have ex- 
hibited those arguments that establish his claim, we shall postpone 
any consideration of their remarkable incredulity, until we have 
closed our exhibition of proofs. 

As the Messiah has been alone revealed to us through the 
medium of the Old Testament writings, it is evident that in at- 
tempting to ascertain the right of Jesus of Nazareth to that ap- 
pellation, we must look, in the first place, to those ancient prophe- 
cies that announced the characteristic proceedings of this eminent 
personage, and the time at which he should come into the world. 
We must, in the second place, ascertain that the character and 
era of Jesus of Nazareth, accorded with the ancient prophecies, 
for it is thus alone, that we can be justified in considering him 
to have been the Messiah. 

But we are precluded by the limits of our Essay, from making 
any comparison of such numerous particulars as arc here implied. 
We must suppose the reader to be acquainted with the simple facts 
of the subject. Our province must be to vindicate the Evangelists 
and Apostles, and to shew them to be credible authorities for the 
absolute truth of the particulars they have certified to our faith. 



216 

Before we enter upon this scrutiny, it is proper that we give a 
summary view of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as related by the 
evangelists. This will enable us to keep more distinctly before our 
eyes, the individual, upon whose account we arc so deeply inter- 
ested, to ascertain the credibility of his disciples and witnesses. 

Jesus of Nazareth, is represented by the evangelists, to have 
been born after a miraculous conception, of a virgin espoused to a 
man in the humblest walks of life, but who was, nevertheless, di- 
rectly of the royal line of David. Jesus was educated by his 
parents in a manner suitable to their reduced condition in society, 
which, in no instance, that we can discern, ever looked forward to 
any future eminence in life. But it is evident that Jesus himself, 
was conscious of his important destiny even from an early child- 
hood. 

When he was about thirty years of age, he began to announce 
that the reign of the kingdom of heaven was at hand,* and private- 
ly he informed his disciples that he was the Messiah. Accompa- 
nied by a greater or less number of followers, he travelled through 
various parts of Judea, instructing the people, and substantiating his 
claim of being divinely commissioned, by miraculously healing all 
those sick or infirm persons who asked succor from him. In these 
most benevolent exercises, it is reasonable to believe he was engag- 
ed about three years and a half, when, having greatly offended the 
priesthood and others of ecclesiastical authority among the Jewish 
people, both by the doctrines he taught and the reproofs he made 
against their corrupt teaching and practices, he was ultimately ar- 
rested by the command of the chief priests, and condemned to die as 
a blasphemer against God. But, as the Jewish authorities had no 
power, at that time, to inflict capital punishments, he was delivered, 
by them, to the Roman governor, under an accusation of meditating 
hostility against the imperial power, which then held Judea in sub- 
jection. 

Though Pilate, the Roman governor, saw the frivolousness of 
this charge, and would have dismissed Jesus, he was overpowered 
by the clamor of the Jewish people, excited by the priesthood and 
the leaders of the predominant religious sects, so that, fearful least 
he might compromit himself with the emperor Tiberius, he unwill- 
ingly condemned Jesus to be crucified, which sentence was carried 
into execution, and he, having died, was buried by certain of his 

*The kingdom of God; and the kingdom of heaven; were common phrases 
amongst the Jews to signify the times of the Messiah: — Locke, Reasonable- 
ness of Christianity, 33. 



217 

disciples. The evangelists then affirm that, alter the space of about 
three days, he rose from this state of death, and manifested himself 
to sundry persons, on different occasions, for about forty days. Fi- 
nally he ascended, as it were, in a visible mariner, to heaven, in the 
presence of his disciples, leaving this command to them, that they 
should go forth to the world preaching the gospel,* and teaching all 
men the doctrines they had learned from him, testifying to the par- 
ticulars of his life, his death, and his resurrection, and declaring, at 
the same time, that all who should put their trust and confidence in 
his power to save them, should inherit everlasting life. 

This brief exhibition, I trust, will be sufficient to prevent the 
reader little acquainted with the relation of the evangelists, from 
falling into the gross error of supposing that Jesus of Nazareth 
was merely a moral teacher, who attempted a reformation of the 
corrupt doctrines and practices of the Jews, and who was prema- 
turely cut off before he could complete that object. Such a notion 
as this is most incorrect and untrue. The office of Jesus Christ, 
according to the evangelists, was to accomplish those unknown 
and inscrutable purposes contemplated in the divine economy, 
that first announced the doctrine of the Messiah to mankind, 
and which, in its nature and condition, are wholly unintelligible to 
us. All that we seem able to comprehend of this subject is, that 
exercises, both of doing and suffering, were required of the Mes- 
siah, as essential to his inscrutable functions, and by which he was 
empowered, after his resurrection from the dead, to promise eter- 
nal life to as many as should put their trust in him. But as we 
shall speak hereafter of this subject as a religious dogma, we shall 
postpone its consideration at the present time. 

I must do the deists the justice to say, that they almost univer- 
sally express admiration and esteem for the person and character of 
Jesus of Nazareth. They have freely acknowledged that his doc- 
trines are of the utmost benevolence and philanthropy, and conform- 
able to the highest standard of moral excellence. There is scarce- 
ly one that has ventured to impeach his integrity, or suspect the pu- 
rity of his motives; on the contrary, they have even admitted an hon- 
est purpose with him in his assuming the name of the Messiah, on 
the ground that he made use of the prejudices of his countrymen in 
favor of that creation of national pride and bigotry, as the doctrine 
of the Messiah is sometimes called, in order to establish his moral 
doctrines with greater power on the minds of his fellow-citizens. 

* Preaching the gospel, i. e. proclaiming good news. "What the inspired 
writers call the gospel, is nothing but the good tidings that tho Messiah and hi<^ 
kingdom was come."— Locke, Reasonableness, 8cc.'53. 
'28 



218 

But, at the same time that the deists make such admissions, they 
also very carefully tell us, that Jesus of Nazareth wrote nothing 
himself, and that all our knowledge concerning him has been de- 
rived through the medium of his disciples, who, after his death, 
wrote what they saw fit, and represented his actions and his doc- 
trines in a manner conformable to their own views, and which in- 
volve every suspicion of a selfish scheme to their own advantage, 
set off* by a raving fantastic enthusiasm. 

Our evident course, then, as suggested by deistical objections, is 
not to undertake any vindication of the personal history or charac- 
ter of Jesus of Nazareth, for in the main they admit his moral char- 
acter to be unimpeachable. We are called on to establish the credi- 
bility and integrity of his evangelists and apostles, to substantiate the 
truth, not of a part, but the whole of their relation, and the justi- 
fiable inferences to be deduced from their statements. 

In what manner shall we be enabled to establish these most im- 
portant particulars? 

The ground upon which we examined the constitution of the Jew- 
ish church was this: If the institutions of Moses were of fraudful 
and knavish construction, they could have been only contrived to 
answer some selfish purposes, whether excited by ambition or sen- 
suality. 

On subjecting them, therefore, to the most searching scrutiny that 
such a suspicion could suggest, we found that every law or appoint- 
ment was founded upon principles utterly opposed to such an impu- 
tation. We, therefore, came distinctly to the conclusion, that where 
every appointment was in direct opposition to the interests of a 
worldly or selfish policy, whether civil or ecclesiastic, it was abso- 
lutely incredible, that the system could be the contrivance of knaves 
and impostors. Where there is nothing to be gained, and the whole 
spirit of the system is in opposition to selfish motives, it is utterly ab- 
surd to ascribe knavery or imposture to the founders. 

In proceeding to examine the Christian dispensation upon simi- 
lar views, we must ascertain what possible advantage, in any re- 
spect, could be derived by the apostles and evangelists in fabri- 
cating the relations they have given us concerning Jesus Christ, 
and in what manner the system they promulgated, could work to 
their benefit, or that of their disciples. If there was nothing to be 
gained, it is most unjustifiable to charge these witnesses of Jesus 
Christ, with selfish or dishonest contrivances; and hence, as with the 
Jewish Church, there can be no knavery or imposture, where there 
is not some advantage to be gained. 



219 

There is this remarkahle pecuHarity involved in the history and 
character of the pronnulgators of the Christian religion, that es- 
sentially distinguishes them fronn those who constituted the Jewish 
church, viz. they authorized no tcnnporal, or visible establishment, 
whose fundamental principles as a scheme of human policy, we 
can investigate. 

The apostles neither set up, nor proposed any scheme of church 
or hierarchy, that could, in the spirit of their institutions, exercise 
any ecclesiastical government over their disciples and converts. 
This must be evident to any one who thinks independently on the 
subject, for not only is there wanting any plan or draft of a constitu- 
tion for a visible temporal church, but the very allusions of the 
evangelists or apostles to the mere subject of order in the reli- 
gious assemblies of their converts, are so slight and incidental, that 
the most opposite guesses, rather than inferences, have been made 
by men upon the actual condition of the primitive Christian church. 

This omission, on the part of the New Testament writers, af- 
fords us an argument of the greatest value, for the apostles being 
alone familiar on the subject of church governments, with the 
orders and appointments of the Jewish hierarchy, one would sup- 
pose that, had they been governed by any selfish consideration, 
they might, without any difficulty, have introduced an analogous 
establishment. That they should altogether omit to make any 
establishment, speaks volumes in favor of their honesty and disin- 
terestedness. 

And to give this argument, the full weight to which it is entitled, 
the evangelists and apostles invariably represent Jesus Christ to 
possess a sovereign dominion, and that, ultimately, the whole world 
should be subdued before him. This doctrine they unceasingly 
preached. But, at the same time, they declared this dominion was 
to be understood alone spiritually, and to such an absolute degree, 
that they neither established a church government or system, nor 
ever taught the people to look to a church, not even for the solution 
of cases of doubt or conscience, much less to one that should exert 
any temporal jurisdiction. 

Not only have they abstained from enacting any thing that can 
be impeached on the score of ambitious motives, but they formally 
and expressly announce, that Jesus Christ himself declared that the 
kingdom he should establish in this world, was one that should not 
be seen or perceived in any external form. It was invisible, and 
the subjects of this government were to be influenced by their con- 
ciences alone, in the discharge of every particidar duty. So far 



220 

from ofTering temporal honors or official dignities to his followers, 
Jesus Christ foretells them, according to the evangelists, alone of 
tribulation and afflictions, sorrow and persecution. He exhorts 
them to endure all these things with patience, and to continue in 
well doing as long as life should last, for not until they should 
rise from the dead, does he promise them the reward of their 
patience. 

The sole office exercised by the apostles and evangelists, was to 
proclaim to all men that Jesus was the promised Messiah, that for- 
giveness of sin was to be sought alone through him in virtue of his 
atonement and intercession, and not by the observance of moral 
duties as among the heathen, or through the observances, whether 
moral or ceremonial, of the law of Moses* These last, they de- 
clared to be alone typical of that atonement, fulfilled by Jesus of 
Nazareth in his death and official intercession. 

The means by which the first preachers of Christianity estab- 
lished the truth of their doctrine on the minds of their hearers, were 
two-fold: 

First, by showing how the prophecies of ancient Scripture had 
been fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth; and secondly, by the performance 
of miracles accomplished through aPx invocation of his name. 

On these subjects we shall make a few observations that the 
reader may more distinctly appreciate them. 

Concerning the prophecies of the Scripture we must remark, that 
the Messiah is no where fully depicted by any one prophetic writer, 
but each one supplies particulars of his character and functions, which 
in certain instances, are seemingly irreconcilable with the general 
description. Therefore, when the apostles and evangelists showed 
how all circumstances had been fulfilled, and how all anomalies were 
completely reconciled in the history of the life, the actions, the doc- 
trines, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, it seems 
almost impossible that any rational man could withhold his assent 
but that this person must have been the Messiah.f 

*"Then opened he their understanding that they might understand tlie 
Scriptures, 

And said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer 
and to rise from the dead, the third day: 

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 

And ye are witnesses of these things." — Luke xxiv. 45, &c. 

fThough an exhibition of the instances in which the Old Testament pro- 
phecies were fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth, is of essential importance in estab- 
lishing his claim of being the Messiah, — yet such a discourse would so largely 
add to the bulk of this work, that we are compelled to withhold the statement, 
and to refer the reader to those writers who have made special details on these 



221 

But, if any doubt might remain upon the understanding of those 
who had studied the ancient prophecies, it would seem that doubt 
must give way, when the disciples of Jesus Christ wrought miracles 
by invoking the name of their master. That supernatural actions 
were performed by them, I presume cannot be denied now, for 
neither Jew nor heathen, who lived about those times, seem to have 
disputed the fact. They very erroneously attributed these miracu- 
lous displays of power to demoniacal or magical influences; and thus 
at the same time that they testify to us that miracles were per- 
formed by the disciples of Jesus Christ, they also furnish us with an 
explanation why they themselves unhappily refused to believe a sys- 
tem attested by evidences of the approbation of God. 

The morality taught by the apostles can scarcely be said to differ 
from that of the law of Moses, though they exposed and set aside 
many pharasaical corruptions, prevailing among the Jews at the 
time of the advent. The New Testament writers, however, more 
expressly carry out into greater extensiveness of application, all 
moral obligations, even to the most secret thoughts and affections 
of the human heart, and that, without regarding any national or 
sectarian difference between men. Universal love or charity was 
required for all mankind, under the unerring rule of doing to every 
one, what they could ask to be done to themselves. 

In the discharge of all such duties, men were considered free 
agents, undergoing moral trial or discipline, in like manner, as in 
every former age of the world. But at the same time they were 
most abundantly informed, that if a man did transgress in any par- 
ticular, that there was a mediator and redeemer existing in Jesus 
Christ, who would procure pardon and forgiveness of sin to all who 
should sincerely repent, and seek their salvation through him. 

Thus the system established by the disciples of Jesus Christ was 
absolutely one that had no temporal foundation whatever to rest 
upon. It made no difference whether the Christian was a Jew, 
Greek, or Roman; whether he was rich or poor; a slave or a free 
man. And consistently with these disinterested views, the apostles 
required their followers to submit to every civil ordinance and insti- 
tution of the different nations and kingdoms to which they were sub- 
ject; "give honor to whom honor, tribute to whom tribute is due," 
&c., formally stating, that the then established government and civil 
authority stood under the permission or the appointment of God. 

particulars. There is a very good view of them given by Home in his Intro- 
duction to the Scriptures. Vol. 1. App. iv. 



222 

Thus not only is every single motive disclaimed by the apostles, 
that would tend to establish temporal rule or dominion over mankind, 
but they taught their followers to look for persecution and tribulation 
in this life, and the reward promised for well doing was alone to be 
received after death. Nor is it an insignificant matter to remark, 
that the particulars of the blessedness of heaven is no where even 
insinuated by them, it is alone stated to be a most exalted state of 
happiness, but without the enunciation of a single particular, by 
which the sensual nature of man might be stimulated into desire of 
its enjoyment. This circumstance in itself, is one of some import- 
ance towards estimating the integrity of the first promulgators of the 
Christian religion, for it must be evident to every one, that as the 
immortality of the soul, and future judgment, were their essential 
doctrines, so impostors could afford to promise nothing more abun- 
dantly than the fruition of heaven. This every false religion has 
availed itself of to make such special descriptions, that they are per- 
fectly intelligible to the meanest capacity. 

To our preceding arguments thus vindicating the apostles and dis- 
ciples of Jesus Christ, from any suspicion of having been influenced 
by any ambitious, avaricious, or other selfish motives, let us now 
further urge, that as the moral doctrines taught by them are of the 
most excellent purity, of universal benevolence and charity, so they 
are most rigid in forbidding excess, sensuality, pride, and every 
other evil passion whatever. This being the fact, and no one in his 
senses can deny it,* let me then ask upon what earthly ground can 

*Lord Bolingbroke, however inimical to the theory of the divine constitution 
of Christianity he may have been, has not hesitated to render the clearest testi- 
mony to the excellent morality of the Christian religion, as the following ex- 
tracts from his writings abundantly show. And his observation on the subject of 
theological teaching, not only is creditable to his discernment, but does justice 
to the actual merits of Christianity, which most other deists have endeavored 
to confound with false teachings of men. 

"The Gospel teaches universal benevolence, recommends the precepts of it, 
and commands the observation of them in particular instances occasionally, 
always supposes them, always enforces them, and makes the law of right reason 
a law in every possible definition of the word, beyond all cavil. Isai/ beyond oU 
cavil, because a great deal of silly cavil has been employed to perplex the plain- 
est thing in nature, and the best determined signification of words according to 
the different occasions on which they are used." Bolingbroke, Essay 4th, 
section 5th. 

"The Gospel of Christ is one continued lesson of the strictest morality, of 
justice, of benevolence, and of universal charity." Bolingbroke, Fragments of 
Essays, 20. 

"No religion ever appeared in the w^orld whose natural tendency was so much 
directed to promote the peace and happiness of mankind. If it has had a con- 
trary effect, it has had it apparently, not really. Theology {tficii >^ the doc- 
trinal teaching of men) is a science that maybe compared justly to the box of 
Pandora." Bolingbroke, Essay 4th, section 4th. 



223 

any one suppose the apostles of Jesus Christ to liave been knaves 
and impostors, who without setting up the least ecclesiastical power> 
lived in poverty under persecution, and finally gave the last testimony 
of their sincerity, by dying as martyrs to the truth of the doctrines 
they taught. 

To this array of proof, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah 
as certified by the writings of the evangelists and apostles, whether 
as implicated in the fulfilment of ancient prophecies, and in the per- 
formance of miracles as evidences of his divine commission, I 
know of no objection whatever, as made by deists or sceptics, that 
deserves an examination in this place; but the single circumstance 
that the Jews, as a nation, did, at the advent, disbelieve Jesus of 
Nazareth to be the Messiah, notwithstanding the proofs he exhibit- 
ed to them, and that they have ever since rejected his claim. 

Though there is something plausible in this objection, at first 
sight, yet, in truth it is not an objection, but one of the most impor- 
tant evidences that can be advanced to substantiate the divine com- 
mission of our Redeemer. For the inspired prophets of the Old 
Testament distinctly announced that the Jews would reject the Mes- 
siah when he should come,* that he would then turn to the Gen- 
tiles, and that they would acknowledge him. Consequently the un- 
belief of the Jews, and their rejection of Jesus of Nazareth, con- 
stitutes a proof actually essential to the verification of his mission. 
Without this unbelief and rejection of him by the Jews, it would 
be impossible that Jesus of Nazareth could be the Messiah. 

The exhibition of proof, therefore, is complete, and the objection 
of the deists has only led us to a more distinct perception of the ir- 
refragable evidence by which the Christian religion is sustained. 

The incredulity of the Jews concerning Jesus Christ is, however, 
a most extraordinary circumstance, and deserves our closest atten- 
tion. As the subject seems not to be understood by the Christian 
world, I have made an exhibition of this matter, and have analysed 
it in its more important features. The reader will find it in our sec- 
ond appendix, and I recommend its perusal, not only as containing, 
in my apprehension, a true solution to a most interesting subject of 
difficult consideration, but as presenting, at the same time, a warn- 
ing lesson to the Christian world, upon a subject which they, in gen- 
eral, do not seem to appreciate. 

We have now completed an examination of those more important 
particulars that have any direct bearing upon the credibility of those 

*The reader can verify this fact by referring to the digest of prophecies that 
we have made, commencing at page 203, preceding. 



224 

witnesses who testify to the divine constitution of the Christian 
religion. It, therefore, only remains that we should recapitulate 
the points we have established, before we go into any exposition of 
the peculiar doctrines of the system. 

We have shown that the theory of our religion is exclusively 
based on the fact, that the Creator of all things has announced to 
man, that if he will be obedient to the requirements of a system 
appointed by him, that then the Creator will bless man with a hap- 
py immortality; but that, if man will not seek the favor and bless- 
ing of his Creator, that he shall become miserable and unhappy in 
a future life. 

Our attempt, therefore, has been confined to show that the evi- 
dences for the truth of this revealed system are abundantly sufficient 
to establish the fact of its being a divine constitution. 

We have shown distinctly that those individuals who had the dis- 
pensation of this system committed to them during the long con- 
tinuance of the Jewish economy, stand unimpeachable in the cred- 
ibility of their testimony; for we have scrutinized their motives 
and proceedings by the severest tests to which human evidence can 
be subjected, and their integrity remains not only spotless, but ir- 
radiated with the splendor of the fact, that they alone among men, 
have maintained a system not only free from all imputation of ec- 
clesiastical fraud, but as exhibiting the most unbounded scheme of 
benevolence and philanthropy of which we can conceive.* 

Out of the numerous witnesses that stand on the Jewish founda- 
tion, originates a further amount of testimony in those prophetic 
intimations made by men not only of unimpeachable integrity as 
to their personal disinterestedness, but in the fact that they foretold, 
centuries before the day of fulfilment, the advent of that important 
personage to whom the destinies of mankind were committed, and of 
whom it was predicted that he should establish a glorious dominion 
throughout the nations of the earth. As the advent of the Messiah, 
and the kingdom he should establish, was implicated in the concur- 
rence of circumstances of the most anomalous kind, and which, in- 
deed, in certain particulars, seemed contradictory to the general theo- 
ry of the subject; so the divine constitution of the system was necessa- 
rily exhibited by their literal and actual fulfilment, in the advent of 
Jesus Christ. For, as nothing but the Spirit of God could announce, 

* Nothing is more correct than the observation of Bishop Berkely: "It is 
impossible to produce any useful truth, any moral precept, any salutary prin- 
ciple, from the whole scope and range df philosophy, ancient and modern, which 
is not comprehended in the Christian religion, and by it enforced with stronger 
motives, and urged to the highest degrees of perfection." 



225 

for centuries beforehand, the condition of an age hidden in the wombof 
time, so the minute fulfilment of these ancient predictions, was abun- 
dant proof of the inspiration of those individuals who had predicted 
events to be so remotely fulfilled, and under such extraordinary con- 
ditions. 

Jesus of Nazareth did fiilfil these events of the prophesied coun- 
sel of Jehovah, accomplishing them particularly and minutely, so 
that by his birth, his life, his actions, his death, his resurrection, 
and exaltation, the entire roll of prophecy, mysterious and anoma- 
lous as it might seem to have been, was clearly explained. Further 
than this, many prophetic annunciations that had not been supposed 
to refer to him were accomplished in his mission, redoubling the 
amount of divine evidence on this subject, by a fulfilment of things 
that previously had not been anticipated. 

The evidences of the divine commission of Jesus of Nazareth, 
therefore, are twofold; they partly depend upon the credibility of 
those individuals who were eye-witnesses to the personal acts of his 
ministry, and they partly depend upon the perceptions of our own 
understanding, as being able to determine the fulfilment of ancient 
prophecies accomplished at the tinie and since the exaltation of the 
Redeemer. Such are the continual increase of his sovereignty 
among the nations of the earth, his prophecy that Jerusalem should 
be trodden down of the Gentiles, until their times shall be fulfilled; 
the rise of that great apostacy in the Christian world which his 
apostles predicted, and other prophetic particulars that we cannot 
speak of at present. 

We also investigated the question as to the integrity of the apostles 
of Jesus Christ, and examined them accordingtoevery rule or prin- 
ciple by which the veracity of men can be tested, and we find them 
to be wholly unimpeachable in the discharge of those philanthropic 
duties, to whose importance and truth they gave the last evidence 
that can be required of human sincerity, to wit, their lives at the 
martyr's stake. 

And finally, we have, as it were, the testimony of God himself, 
who has enabled Christianity from the humblest beginning, to 
triumph over every opposition, and to establish itself throughout 
every civilized region of the globe, and over the understanding and 
conscience of the most intellectual of men. We must say with 
Mosheim on this subject, "Unless we suppose here a divine interpo- 
position, how was it possible that men, destitute of all human aid, 
without credit or riches, learning or eloquence, could, in so short a 
time, persuade a considerable part of mankind to abandon the relig- 
29 



226 

ion of their ancestors? How was it possible that a handful of 
apostles, who as fishermen and publicans, must have been contemned 
by their own nation^ and as Jews must have been odious to all others, 
could engage the learned and mighty, as well as the simple and 
those of low degree, to forsake their favorite prejudices, and to em- 
brace a new religion, which was an enemy to their corrupt passions." 
Is it possible then to furnish testimony more satisfactory as to 
the credibility of those persons who have certified to us the revela- 
tions of Jehovah? And is it anywise arrogant to state, that the 
man who refuses to believe the divine constitution of the Christian 
religion, would continue in that unbelief, even though one should 
arise from the dead to make such a communication. But how- 
ever this may be, I shall cease to make any further exhibition of 
proof on the subject. Let men continue in their unbelief if they 
please, but that they have evidence enough to form a true judgment, 
I hold to be indisputable as measured by all those principles, by 
which men do judge of truth, as implicated in all those issues in 
w^hich the dearest interests of humanity are daily investigated and 
determined. And what higher standard of proof has any one a 
right to demand?* 

*The reader who will pause, and consider the course we have pursued in 
our previous investigation, will not fail to perceive how accordant every prin- 
ciple we have investigated, has been shown to be with the whole subject. 
To ^ive greater weiglit to this very important argument, I subjoin the fol- 
lowing extract from Starkie on Evidence, which fully recognizes the value 
of such proofs, i,nd classes them among the highest exhibitions of moral 
evidence. 

"Where direct evidence of the fact in dispute is wanting, the more the 
jury can see of the surrounding facts and circumstances, the more correct 
their judgment is likely to be. It is possible, that some circumstances may 
be misrepresented, or acted with a view to deceive, but the whole contex of 
circumstances cannot be fabricated; the false invention must have its bounda- 
ries, where it may be compared with the truth, and therefore, the more exten- 
sive the view of the jury is of all the minute circumstances of the transac- 
tion, the more likely will they be to arrive at a true conclusion. Truth is 
necessarily consistent with itself, in other words, all facts which really did 
happen, did actually consist and agree with each other. If then the circum- 
stances of the case as detailed in evidence, are incongruous and inconsistent, 
that inconsistency must have arisen either from mistake, from wilful mis- 
representation, or from the correct representation of facts, prepared and acted 
with a view to deceive. From whatever source the inconsistency may arise, 
it is easy to see that the greater the number of circumstances is, which are 
exhibited to the jury, the more likely will it be that the truth will prevail, 
since the stronger and more numerous will be the circumstances on the side of 
truth. It will be supported by facts, the effect of which no human sae;acity 
could have foreseen, and v^'hich are, therefore, beyond the reach of suspicion; 
whilst, on the other hand, fraudulent evidence must necessai-ily either be 
confined to a few facts, or be open to detection by affording many opportuni- 
ties of comparing it with that which is known to be true. Fabricated facts, 
must in their very nature, be such as are likely to become material, (i. e. 
those that regard essential particulars. ) Hence it has frequently been said, 



227 

I entreat the sceptical reader to ponder on this last observation, 
and not suffer himself to be misled by any notion of requiring an 
absolute demonstration of the truth of Christianity. We have 
shown that Christianity is addressed to men as intellectual beings 
and free agents, who are undergoing probation under its appoint- 
ments. We are, therefore, to judge of its truth or falsehood by 
the same rule, that we judge of any other intellectual or moral 
subject. The evidences in its favor, are to be weighed against 
those that oppose its claims, and the understanding and the con- 
science are to decide upon the subject. Alas for him, that sets 
aside the greater for the less amount of evidence; he certainly must 
be without excuse in that day when God shall judge all the secrets 
of the human heart. 

that a well supported and consistent body of circumstantial evidence, is some- 
times stronger than even direct evidence of a fact; that is, the degree of un- 
certainty which arises from a doubt as to the credibility of direct witnesses, 
may exceed that which aiises upon the question whether a proper inference 
has been made from facts well ascertained. A witness may have been sub- 
orned to give a false account of a transaction to which he alone was privy, and 
the whole rests upon the degree of credit to be attached to the veracity of 
the individual, but where a great number of independent facts conspire to 
the same conclusion, and are supported by many unconnected witnesses, the 
degree of credibility to be attached to the evidence increases in a very high 
proportion, arising from the improbability that all those witnesses should be 
mistaken, or perjured, and that all the circumstances should have happened 
contrary to the usual and ordinary course of human affairs. — Starkie i. 39, 



CHAPTER XI. 

ON THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE, INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT, AND 
INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLICAL WRITINGS. 

In the examination to which we have hitherto subjected the Scrip- 
ture writers, we have alone regarded their integrity and disinterest- 
edness, as constituting them credible witnesses. Having sufficiently 
examined this subject, with all the suspiciousness with which a ra- 
tional man might be supposed to regard this matter, we have never- 
theless been unable to discern the least trace of fraud, selfishness, or 
ecclesiastical contrivance, in those persons who have written the 
volume of the Scriptures. We may, therefore, fully conclude, that 
the biblical writers are absolutely free from any influence of selfish- 
ness, fraud, and imposture, and that their testimony is wholly unim- 
peachable on the score of moral honesty and integrity. 

This fact, therefore, proves distinctly, that the volume of the 
Scripture has been handed down to our times wholly free from any 
wilful corruption or selfish interpolation, for our scrutiny having 
been conducted upon the copies now in use, as collated with those 
of the greatest antiquity, vindicates this point completely, for I know 
not a single passage of our printed Bibles, that can justify the small- 
est imputation of having been written from a selfish or dishonest 
motive. 

But, nevertheless, to use the phrase of an apostle, our treasure in 
the biblical writings has beien contained in earthen vessels, and 
though no charge of fraudulent corruption can be made against the 
writers of the sacred volume, yet the accuracy of its truth, and the 
distinctness of its narration, has been obscured to a greater or less 
degree, by the many accidents to which it has been subjected during 
the three thousand years that have elapsed since men began to 
record these revelations of God. The Scriptures themselves are not 
the revelation of Jehovah, but a collection of the writings of men who 
have in them recorded what Jehovah had announced to mankind, 
connected with the history of events whether natural or miraculous, 
that occurred durin,e: the times of the divine visitations. 



229 

Hence it is evident that the Scripture text is yet to be examined 
on two particulars of critical accuracy, viz. 

First. Whether the doctrines taught in the Scriptures are so 
undoubtedly distinct in their enunciation, that there can be no diffi- 
culty in ascertaining the duty we are to perform. If there be any 
embarrassment on this particular subject, the Scriptures are of no 
value whatever, although the writers be clearly vindicated from the 
charge of any intentional fraud or corruption. 

Secondly. With respect to the historical statements of the Scrip- 
ture, whether of natural or of miraculous events, however desirable 
it might be to have them correctly related, the canons of good sense 
will admit of a certain degree of obscurity or inaccuracy of rela- 
tion: provided the substantial truth be sufficiently distinct, we need 
not be disturbed by any mere defect in the correct statement of par- 
ticular circumstances, for such statements are not matters of faith, 
but of record, and however valuable they may be to a good his- 
torical relation, they have no matter of salvation in them. But upon 
this subject there is no necessity to enlarge, as any person of ordi- 
nary capacity can fully appreciate the subject.* 

Having by our previous discourse established the general credi- 
bility of the several writers of the Scripture, as received by the 
Protestant churches, we now proceed to investigate several critical 
subjects, pertaining to the biblical writings themselves, preparatory 
to stating the particular doctrines they announce to mankind. These 
subjects are as follow: 

1st. By what authority has the canon of Scripture been made? 

2d. Have the Scriptures been handed down to our time the same, 
verbatim et literatim^ as they were originally written? 

3rd. Are the Scriptures to be regarded as being inspired, verbatim 
et literatim^ or only so substantially? 

4th. What is the absolute value of the English, or any other 
translation, in communicating a true knowledge of the divine reve- 
lation? 

Taking up these subjects in the above order, we shall commence 
with an investigation of the authority by which our present canon 
has been made. 

♦Thus, for instance, there is an apparent discrepancy between St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, concerning: the particular death of Judas Iscariot. Butwhatdoes 
the difference signify? The substantial statement is, that Judas came to a vio- 
lent end. The whole discrepancy depends, in all probability, upon some mis- 
understanding of the original word cm])loyed by St. Matthew. I presume the 
reader does not require to be told that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Syriac 
language, and that the Greek version, which we possess, is but a translation. 



230 

It is important to ascertain the true canon of Scripture from the 
fact sufficiently notorious, that certain rehgious books, whether per- 
taining to the Jewish or Christian dispensation, have been judged 
not to be inspired productions, and are commonly termed apochry- 
phal. It therefore seems necessary that there should be some rule 
by which we are to determine those that are true or inspired. 

We may, without the least hesitation, affirm that there never has 
been any canon of Scripture determined by the authority of any 
body of men, whether of the Jewish, or of the Christian church. 
The notion that the Jewish sanhedrim determined the inspiration of the 
books of the Old Testament, by a careful investigation of the fact at the 
time of their original promulgation, is a notion without any historical 
warrant, and even if true would not be worth a straw. For what 
divine assistance or authority had they to make such a judgment. 
From the want of any evidence on the subject, we are alone justified 
to consider, that, excepting the book of the law of Moses, which 
from the foundation of the Jewish state, was their sole code, both 
civil and religious, the other books of the Old Testament were sim- 
ply received from the time of their publication, by pious individuals, 
whether lay or clerical, who preserved them with reverence, multi- 
plied copies, and who quoted or read them among the people at large. 

It is very possible, after the return of the Jews from the Babylon- 
ish captivity, that the more ancient books of the present Old Testa- 
ment canon, received an official recognition by Ezra and other 
chiefs of the Jewish nation at that time, and in all likelihood there 
was a recension of the Scripture text made under their supervision. 
But be this as it may, there is not the least authority to consider the 
work to have been accomplished by inspired men. I can see no 
where in the Scripture that Ezra himself makes the least claim to 
inspiration, and to ascribe this sacred influence to the members of 
the great sanhedrim, and rabbi Simon the Just, is one of the ab- 
surdest notions that the Christian church has ever entertained. 

The Apochryphal books of the Old Testament were never re- 
garded by the Jews, but as uninspired productions, nor cem we per- 
ceive any reason whatever to consider them otherwise. But if any 
one will give us sufficient argument, by which we may be able to 
discern their inspiration, no one can object to receive them as 
such. 

With respect to the canonical books of the New Testament, we 
can speak with more positiveness, as will appear by the following 
historical view. 



231 

Not only the immediate disciples and apostles of our Saviour, 
wrote historic relations and religious epistles, in the first century- 
after Christ, but many other persons did the same, some in virtue of 
their appointments as teachers and instructors, others from a desire 
to preserve the truth of events and doctrines considered interesting 
and important. And as men of the present day, so anciently, there 
were not only judicious and capable writers, but there were also 
a number who were injudicious, visionary , and credulous, who, re- 
lating many things from hearsay, or without a sufficient knowledge 
of facts, multiplied impertinent and silly stories, and often false doc- 
trines through their imbecility. Others, again, in a later period, 
perverted the writings of individuals of a former age, in order to 
sustain themselves in some of the numerous heresies that arose in 
the first and second centuries after Christ. 

In consequence of the number and the unjustifiable uses made of 
such books, it appears that about the beginning of the fourth century 
(A. D. 300) it became an object of much solicitude among the more 
pious and learned Christians of that age, to determine among these 
various writings which were untrue, in contradistinction to those 
which were true; and which were credible, in contradistinction 
to those which were puerile or inaccurate. Hence we find several 
eminent men of that time, publishing catalogues of what they con- 
sidered the genuine writings of the immediate disciples of our 
Saviour, and as might be expected, with certain differences of 
opinion as to the inspiration, or authority of particular books. 

Out of this conflict of opinions arose a greater amount of scru- 
tiny into the facts of the case, and which, except in a few instances, 
were not difficult in bringing to a satisfactory decision, for certain 
of these books had been always in official use among the whole 
Christian world. In the instances, where particular epistles had 
been addressed to particular churches, they might have either seen 
the very autographs themselves, or the copies which it was a part 
of the religious service of such churches to read to the congrega- 
tion. On the whole, therefore, there could be no material difficulty 
in ascertaining what books the Christian churches had never ceased 
to hold in reverence, from the time of their promulgation; and which 
had been continually used for instruction and doctrine, in all their 
various congregations established throughout Christendom. 

That there was no precipitancy in determining this subject, and 
that no ecclesiastical decision was ever made with authority on 
the canon, is evident from the great lapse of time tiiat ensued l)c- 
fore the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation of St. John, 



were fully received by the Christian churches. And I believe the 
Epistle of Jude, and certain Epistles of St. Peter, to this day, are 
not held to be canonical by many persons. 

But the great number of details which an examination of the 
canonical books of Scripture would require, forbids us to at- 
tempt any investigation of this subject. We must refer the reader 
to Lardner, Michaelis, and others, who have made such particulars 
the subjects of special study and investigation, 

But whenever such an examination has been made by the reader, 
it will be seen that the books of the Old or New Testaments, from 
first to last, depend upon no other canon than those of historical 
testimony, continual use, circumstantial evidence and impartial 
judgment. They do not rest upon any authority whatever of an 
ecclesiastical tribunal, but upon the continuous and concurring tes- 
timony of individuals of successive ages of time, whether orthodox 
or not. None of those presumptuous councils, who undertook to 
decide on so many points of incomprehensible doctrine in the early 
ages of Christianity, ever attempted to make any determination on 
the subject of the canon. 

Some persons, however, deceived by the word council, may ob- 
ject to this statement, that the council of Laodicea, and the 3d 
council of Carthage did determine the canon of Scripture. But this 
is both an error and a misrepresentation, for these two provincial 
councils, which had no more authority over the Christian world than 
the council of Baltimore, or Philadelphia, would have at present, do 
not undertake to determine whether a book of Scripture is canoni- 
cal, or not; they simply recognized certain books, of which they 
give a list, to be of inspired authority. In like manner, the church 
of England, and the church of Scotland, in their constitutions, re- 
cognized the present volume of Scripture as being an inspired 
work, but they do no pretend to determine the fact from inspiration, 
nor does their recognition imply that the Christian world awaited 
their judgment on the subject. The whole act of the provincial 
councils of Laodicea, and of Carthage, like the proceeding of the 
English and Scotch churches, amounts to nothing more than a re- 
cognition; and so far their testimony is good as to the fact of 
the present volume of Scripture being then esteemed the genuine 
writings of those persons to whom they are attributed. 

The council of Trent, A. D. 1546, is the first that ever made a 
book canonical that was not so considered previously. They re- 
cognized all the books that had been so esteemed from the earlier 
ages of Christianity, and at the same time, they included certain 



233 
Apochryphal books in their list, that had ever been rejected by the 
Jews. These books, therefore, the council of Trent have made 
canonical for the Catholics, but for them alone, as no other Chris- 
tian sect regards their judgment in the smallest degree.* 

The canon of Scripture, therefore, depends upon the amount of 
evidence which history, ancient controversies, and judicious criti- 
cism furnish on this subject; and if it may be permitted an individual 
to speak of himself, I can say that I never received the Scriptures 
as either inspired or canonical, until I determined the subject by a 
patient investigation to my own satisfaction, and without regarding 
any individual or body of ecclesiastics as of the least authority; and 
such, I presume, should be the case with every one who has the 
same privilege in his power. I have, finally, determined for my- 
self, that the Scriptures, as received by the Protestant churches, 
with one exception, are fairly entitled to be considered either as the 
writings of inspired men, or as being honest, faithful records, made 
by men influenced alone by worthy and honorable motives. The 
only exception I make, is to the Song of Solomon, which I am wholly 
unable to discern by what reason it is to be considered a devo- 
tional book. I think we might also omit from the New Testament 
St. Paul's Epistle to Oenesimus, and the second, and third Epistles 
of St. John, as they seem to be mere familiar letters to individuals 
without any indication of inspiration. At the same time I know of 
nothing that impeaches their authorship. 

There are a great many interesting particulars involved in the 
discussion concerning the canon, which so much exceed the limits of 
our Essay that we cannot even enumerate them. The only circum- 
stance that we think expedient to notice, is the fact, that a number 
of books in the Old Testament, to wit, from Genesis to 2 Chroni- 
cles, inclusive, are not inscribed with the name of their authors. The 
book of Job, in like manner, and more or less of the Psalms and 
Proverbs. In the New Testament, the Epistle to (he Hebrews is 
without the author's name, and there has been some dispute whether 
the author of the book of Revelations, was the apostle John, or 
another person of similar name. 

I call the reader's attention to these circumstances, since the de- 
ists have made the subject a matter of objection, that I may show 

*My edition of the Douay Bible, says, that when the Council of Trent 
incorporated the books of Maccabees into their canon, they preferred fol- 
lowing their own tradition to that of the Scribes and Pharisees. This judp^ment, 
therefore, implies no rule whereby we arc to determine the canon, and until 
the comparative merits of the traditions be settled, T apprehend the safest 
course will be to hold with the rabbis. 
30 



234 

that such omissions are of very little moment. It must be evident 
that the importance of the Scriptures consists in their being true 
relations, and though it might be more satisfactory' to our curiosity, 
that we knew certainly who the writers were, yet had these books 
been inscribed with the authors' names that circumstance would nei- 
ther have proved them true, nor would it have removed the small- 
est objection against them in the view of the deists. 

As I have, I trust, sufficiently shown that the Scripture writings 
are absolutely free from any imputation of being a selfish scheme, 
devised for the benefit of an interested party, and as I have shown 
their whole scheme and purpose to be one of universal benevolence 
to the whole human race, and these facts being connected with the 
enunciation of prophecies which both have been fulfilled and are 
still fulfilling, so many centuries after they had been written, it must, 
in these circumstances, be evident that these books do contain, not 
only a true, but an inspired relation. 

Our next subject of inquiry is, are the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments, the same, verbatim et literatim, as when first pub- 
lished? Has nothing been lost or omitted from the text? Has 
nothing been interpolated? 

The answer to this query is very plain. The Scripture writings 
are not the same, verbatim et literatim, as originally written. That 
certain matters have been added to the text is undeniable; and that 
other particulars have been either lost or omitted from the text, is 
also evident. Though these blemishes do exist, and, in some in- 
stances, leave us in confusion as to the exact truth of particular pas- 
sages, yet they neither affect the substantial truth, or consistency of 
the Scripture relation, nor do they affect the religious doctrines 
there taught, in the slightest degree. We are not required to ex- 
hibit any proof as to the correctness of this last assertion, for that 
would be to prove the negative. It is sufficient for us to challenge 
our antagonist to any controversy on the subject. 

Though it is not of material importance to our Essay to explain 
the causes that have occasioned a departure, in our present copies, 
from the original text, yet, as the exposition may be satisfactory to 
some of my readers, and as it may tend to correct certain misjudg- 
ments that many Christians have concerning the mere letter of the 
Scripture, I will make a brief statement on this subject, in which 
I shall exhibit, not only those circumstances that have tended to 
the injury of the Scripture text, but also of those that have had an 
influence in preserving it. 

From the time of Moses, tho promulgator of the Jewish law, un- 



235 

til about four hundred years before Christ, the volume of Old Testa- 
ment Scripture was, from time to time, enlarged by the various 
books of which it is now composed. Consequently, the more an- 
cient books have been exposed to a much greater amount of acci- 
dents, than the later writings, for they have only been preserved 
through natural means. 

Of those various circumstances that have affected the integrity 
of the Scripture text, the most important can be traced to the in- 
voluntary errors of those persons, who have, in every successive 
age, copied the sacred writings. Every person who is the least in- 
structed on this subject, or who has even made copies of any other 
writings, must know how difficult, if not how impossible, it is to 
avoid making many and often gross errors. We have not the space 
to enlarge upon this subject, but the fact itself may be sufficiently 
intelligible to the reader by the following enumeration, viz. the 
omission of a word, line, or paragraph, under various considerations of 
hastiness, fatigue in writing, or from having inadvertently overlook- 
ed the place from which they should continue to write. The sub- 
stitution of one word for another, where the orthography was near- 
ly the same, or the misapprehension of the words, when the copy- 
ist wrote from the reading of another person. The introduction of 
explanatory words, or of a gloss into the text, from not understand- 
ing whether it belonged to the margin or the text. In short, all 
those liabilities to error in copying that the experience of every one 
must be familiar with, who has ever exercised a thought on the sub- 
ject. 

In the next place we have to remark, that the Jews, the guar- 
dians of the Old Testament, were, at times, very irreligious, except 
in individual instances, and consequently were regardless of the pre- 
servation of their religious books. The nation also suffered much 
from civil commotions, and foreign invasions, and in the heighth of 
their irreligious conduct, the more important and influential people 
were carried away to Babylon, where they were held in captivity 
for seventy years. In these various moral and political catastrophes, 
the Scripture writings must have suffered more or less damage, for 
it seems to be evident that whole books of undoubted authority have 
perished,* and this being the case, it is impossible to suppose that the 

* Lost books quoted in the Scriptures: 

Book of Nathan, the prophet; book of Gad, the seer, 1 Chron. xxix. 29. 

Prophecy of Ahijah; the visions of Iddo, 2 Chron. ix. 29. 

Book of Shemaiah, the prophet, 2 Chron. xii. 15. 

Book of Jehu, son of Hanani; 2 Chron. xx. 34. 

A history of King Uzziah, by Isaiah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. 



236 

books we now possess are perfect and unmutilated. But to what 
extent they may have been affected by these circunnstances, it is im- 
possible for us to estimate. 

In the preceding general statement, the reader can easily com- 
prehend the various circumstances that have tended to impair the 
integrity of the Old Testament writings, and in that fact, which must 
have been evident anciently, as well as now; he can perceive the 
reasonableness of supposing that recensions of the text have been 
made, from time to time, by persons of credit among the Jews, 
even at very remote periods. It was by such persons, therefore, 
that those explanatory passages or glosses were made, which though 
now inserted in the text, yet speak for themselves, that they do not 
belong to it. These passages at first, were probably included in pa- 
renthetical marks, or were written in the margin, but which since 
thoss early times, having lost the marks of their peculiar distinc- 
tions, have become blended with the text, either from the haste or the 
ignorance of transcribers. Though many of such interpolations are 
sufficiently notorious, there are possibly others that do not clearly 
discover themselves, though they are much suspected; such as seve- 
ral quotations from the book of Jasher; the book of the Wars of the 
Lord, &;c.* 

The New Testament, whose number of books was completed 

*I feel the strongest inclination to refer to some ancient recension of the 
Scripture, the relation of a circumstance in the book of Genesis which has 
been the source of no small cavil with the deists, and of no small perplexity to 
Christian commentators. 

In Genesis, chapter xii,, we are informed that Abraham went down into 
Egypt, where Pharaoh, the Egyptian prince, deprived him of his wife. In 
Genesis, chapter xx., a relation is made of a similar act of injustice, on the 
part of Abiinilech, king of Gerar, under the perplexing circumstance that Sarah 
was at this time, according to thechronologists, ninety years of age. I apprehend 
the relations are of one single event, and not two as commonly considered. In 
making some early recension of the Pentateuch, I presume, the editor had seen 
two different relations of Abraham's history, in one of which, the prince who 
fell in love with Sarah, was termed king of Gerar, which was a Philistine 
country; and in the other account, which was equally true, he was termed a Pha- 
raoh, or prince of Egypt, /or that country ivas then held in subjection by the Phil- 
istines who were the Shepherd kings, — The editor, or commentator, being igno- 
rant of the fact, that they were the same, and finding in the ancient books this 
event related, apparently of two different princes, and one more full in its 
statement than the other, has inserted them both. I feel disposed, with the 
least encouragement from the learned world, to cancel the part of the twelfth 
chapter, from the ninth verse to the end, and to bring in its place the whole of 
the twentieth chapter, and the latter part of the twenty-first chapter, from the 
twenty-second verse, which I apprehend has been displaced from its true con- 
nection. 

In so doing, we shall be justified in the important fact, that the Philistines 
did hold Egypt in subjection at this time, and we get rid of the great difficulty 
of accounting how Abimilech should fall in love with a woman ninety years 
of age. 



237 

about seventy years after the crucifixion, though not exposed to the 
same amount of accident as those of the older volume, have never- 
theless been exposed to many injuries. The Christian world for 
several centuries suffered under great calamities, whether as arising 
from the persecution of the heathens,* the destructive consequences 
of civil commotions, and the terrible desolations induced by those 
various barbarian nations that overthrew the Roman empire. 

We are not aware that any book of the New Testament writers 
has been lost, unless it may be an Epistle of St. Paul to the Corin- 
thians, and one to the Laodiceans. But it is very possible, that other 
apostles have written epistles of which we have no account. 

The transcribing of the New Testament has been attended with 
all those errors of which we have spoken in the preceding page, and 
which are inseparable from all manuscript writing. 

Though there may appear to be some reason to charge some per- 
sons with the crime of having attempted to corrupt certain passages 
of the New Testament, yet as those corruptions appear but in very few 
ancient MSS.; and may be explained in their origin, without any im- 
putation of moral obhquity, I think we are bound to consider them 
as having happened by accident. Such passages however are not 
involved with any selfish doctrine to the benefit of men, but concern 
abstract doctrines of theology of no practical importance. 

Having now stated those causes which have occasioned our copies 
of the Bible to vary, to a greater or less degree, from the original 
publications, we shall now exhibit those circumstances that have 
tended to their preservation, so that we can be enabled to estimate 
the probability, that they have suffered so little, that we can rely 
on them as being substantially correct, and conformable in their 
substance and meaning to the first exemplars. 

Besides the copies of the Hebrew Scripture, we have others in 
the Samaritan language, which claim an antiquity possibly anterior 
to the rebellion of Jeroboam, B. C. 990, but at any rate, not since 
the times of Nehemiah, B. C. 440, for the sectarian hatred of the 
Jews and Samaritans, was sufficient to keep the one from borrowing 
any thing from the other after that time. The mutual agreement 
of these two versions of the Scripture from this early time, in all 
their substantial exhibitions, and their particular agreement, except 
in small historic points, or critical readings, guarantee the integrity 
of the Scripture text of the Old Testament to a very remote antiquity. 

*During the persecution of Diocletian, which lasted ten years, a most dili- 
gent search was made after the books and papers of the Christians, and all that 
were found were committed to the flames. Mosheim i. 72. 



238 

Nearly three hundred years before Christ, the Pentateuch and 
some other books of the Hebrew Scriptures, were translated into 
Greek, for the benefit of the Jews who used that language. Though 
the pure Hebrew of the Scriptures had become a dead language to 
the bulk of the Jewish nation at this time, there was still a suffi- 
cient knowledge of the Hebrew possessed by the more learned Jews, 
to enable them to translate the Scriptures into Greek, as well and 
correctly as it may be supposed possible to translate one living into 
another living language. This translation of the Septuagint, as it 
is called, is of immense importance, as enabling us to determine, 
with greater precision, the significance of many Hebrew words and 
idioms, as well as to correct any errors that may have occurred since 
that time in the Hebrew text. 

With the preaching of Christianity, a further solicitude was 
exerted both for the preservation of the Hebrew text, and the pre- 
cision of its significance, for one great and important proof of the 
divine appointment of Christianity, arose from the fulfilment of the 
predictions announced by Moses and other prophets of the Old Tes- 
tament, and which were constantly referred to both by Jews and 
Christians, in the important controversies of the first two or three 
centuries. 

There have been many causes that tended to preserve the true text 
of the New Testament Scriptures. Immediately after the promul- 
gation of these writings, translations of them were made into Syriac, 
Latin, Arabic, Coptic, &;c. which not only have preserved the true 
principles and doctrines of the Gospel, but we are enabled, through 
this variety of translations, to comprehend with more distinctness, 
the real significance of the idiomatic phrases and hebraisms, which 
abound in the Greek writings of the evangelists and apostles. 

We have also a further mean of verifying the correctness of 
our present copies of the New Testament, by an examination of 
the disputatious writings of those persons denominated the Fathers, 
who, being engaged in a continual theological warfare with one 
another, or with the many schismatic teachers of the first five or 
six centuries, in this manner furnish us with a multitude of quota- 
tions from the New Testament, by which we can largely determine 
the accuracy of our copies as compared with those used by 
them. 

Hut as we have abundantly proved the Scripture writings to be 
free from any imputation of fraudulent or wilful corruption, the 
most effectual process by which the integrity of the text may be 
established, is from that collation of the ancient manuscripts and 



2S9 

versions, which has been so extensively put in execution during the 
last century, and is continually applied whenever any new opportu- 
nity is offered. By this very extensive collation, and the publica- 
tion by various scholars, of the different readings observed between 
them, we have learned in the most satisfactory manner, that the 
Scripture writings are free from any confusion or mistake upon 
every subject relating to our moral or religious obligations. Some 
important corrections on historical subjects, some clearer expression 
of particular passages, have undoubtedly been made, and some in- 
terpolations have been detected, but it is an undeniable truth that 
this laborious investigation of the ancient manuscripts and ver- 
sions, instead of affecting the integrity of the Scripture text, has 
established its substantial accuracy beyond all dispute. 

Having thus fairly exhibited the true history of the biblical text, 
having stated the accidents to which it has been subjected, as well 
as those agencies that have tended to its preservation, let us now 
consider the Bible in a closer and more interesting light, to wit: 
the amount of inspiration with which we must regard its language 
and communications. 

We have already stated that the Bible itself is not a revelation 
from Jehovah, but is the history of a revelation made by him to 
mankind, which has been recorded by human hands. Those indi- 
viduals, who were commissioned by Jehovah to make such commu- 
nications, not only proclaimed it with their mouths, but have writ- 
ten it with their hands, or dictated it to secretaries. 

As to the actual amount of inspiration with which their commu- 
nications were made originally, whether these were only substan- 
tially in the truth of the message communicated, or so plenary as to 
affect even the very words and letters, I cannot come to a positive 
determination, though I prefer the opinion that their inspiration 
was only substantial in declaring a true message. 

But, however this may have been originally, at the time when 
prophets and apostles preached, or when their autographs existed, it 
must be abundantly evident that we of the present day, can only re- 
gard the Scriptures, whether of the Old or New Testament, but 
as being substantially inspired. This must be clear from our pre- 
vious discourse, where we have shown fhe accidents to which the 
Scripture text has been subjected, that not only involve the possibili- 
ty of the omission of words and passages, the interpolation of words 
and passages, the inadvertent mistakes of copyists, but many diffi- 
culties also exist as to our critical idiomatic perception of the pre- 
cise import and signification of words and passages, and hence it is 



240 

impossible that we can contend for any plenary inspiration. But 
we can, without any difficulty, contend for the inspired truth of the 
message communicated by prophets and apostles, and the substantial 
doctrines urged by them. 

According to this view, it will be perceived, that we consider the 
amount of knowledge that we receive from the Scriptures, is con- 
veyed in the substance of the message or communication there re- 
corded, and that it is to be understood in the ordinary significance of 
language, and not in technical words or expressions; and if this be 
the case, which I hold to be indisputable, 1 apprehend that the 
divine message is as fully expressed by our common translation, 
as it is either in the Hebrew or Greek originals. 

However much men may talk of the original Scriptures, it is the 
translations alone that enlighten and influence modern society, for 
generally speaking, neither clergy nor laity, are able to compre. 
hend them in the ancient languages.* It is the English translation 
alone, that is used for doctrine, instruction, and reproof, wherever 
the English language is spoken, and as I contend that it communi- 
cates the whole substance of the inspired message that God has 
communicated to mankind, so there is a propriety that 1 should ex- 
hibit its actual value, before I proceed to state what I apprehend 
are the true doctrines of the Scripture. 

The English translation, made by a number of learned and pious 
men, two hundred years ago, from the best printed editions of the 
Hebrew and Greek Bibles, and possibly with the assistance of a few 
ancient manuscripts, was very faithfully and honestly executed. 
But not having the advantage of the immense collation of manus- 
cripts and versions, that have been made since that time, it is in 
sundry places undoubtedly different from what would be considered 
a more correct text at the present day. Several *words and pas- 
sages in our present translation ought accordingly to be stricken out, 
and many suppletory words might be added, as well as others be 
omitted, in order to make a more correct sense. No change, how- 
ever, could be made that would weaken or impugn the simplicity of 
gospel truth in the least degree. It would alone remove some blem- 

*It may, perhaps, be worth while to remark, that this has been the case at 
all times since the foundation of Christianity. Few of the ancient Greek 
fathers understood Hebrew, and few of the Latin fathers understood either 
Hebrew or Greek. Though they have been canonized as saints, and nursing 
fathers to the church, yet they only understood the Scriptures by means of 
translations into the vulgar tongues. St. Augustine himself, though so eminent 
as a Doctor of Theology, ana of such high authority in the Romish church. 
as father Simon has frequently observed, knew but very little of Greek, and 
nothing at all of Hebrew.— Histoire Critique, V. T. 387, 398. 



241 

ishes of text and expression. And as soon as it may be considered 
that the ancient manuscripts and versions have been sufficiently col- 
lated, the present English translation should be revised by compe- 
tent and pious men, and an edition be published whereby the un- 
learned may receive the full benefit of those labors which so many 
eminently learned Christians have bestowed on the subject. 

The only sources of error to which the mere English readers of 
our common translation are liable, are two: Fii-st, in considering that 
our version is an exact translation of the Scriptures, literally such as 
they were revealed from God to man, and secondly, in supposing 
that our English words contain the very force and technical mean- 
ing of the Hebrew or Greek text. 

With respect to the first of these subjects, we have already shown 
that we have not a true copy of the Scriptures as originally written. 
There is no one standard text or copy to be found any where. The 
best text is only to be ascertained from the concurring testimony of 
the most ancient and most carefully written manuscripts and ver- 
sions, aided by a sound critical judgment, and the evident sense and 
context of the passages. This process necessarily implies much 
labor and study, and a long time may elapse before the literal text 
of the Scripture shall be put into an unexceptionable condition. 

In the second place, our English words, with iew exceptions, rarely 
convey the precise signification of the Hebrew or Greek words. They 
sometimes exceed, and sometimes fall short of the exact meaning of 
the original text, and it is impossible to translate idiomatic phrases 
but by an unavoidable circumlocution. 

But, nevertheless, there is no doubt but that the English transla- 
tion communicates to us the full sense of the divine revelation, ex- 
pressed in the idiom of our own forms of speech. 

The only real advantage that the scholar has over the mere Eng- 
lish reader is, the consciousness of his own ignorance of Hebrew 
and Greek, and of the defects of the translation. This knowledge, 
instead of enabling him to advance doctrines with greater authority, 
ought to make him much more scrupulous how he determines on 
the subject, for I believe it will be readily admitted by scholars, that 
the profoundest Hebrew and Greek scholar living, does not possess 
any such nice perception of the significance of those languages, as 
an intelligent youth of fifteen or sixteen years of age did when 
those languages were living forms of speech. 

The wise and the learned owe it to the uneducated to enlighten them 
on these subjects to the utmost of their ability, and I can see no diffi- 
culty in furnishing a translation of the Scripture, which, by a small 
31 



242 

critical apparatus, and occasional philological notes, would enable 
the intelligible English reader to comprehend the Scripture with 
the precision that may be enjoyed by any scholar. And if the Eng- 
lish reader can receive this amount of information, I cannot see why 
the English translation should not be considered as much the lan- 
guage of inspiration as the mere text of the Hebrew and Greek, 
which, having been dead languages for so long a period, are only 
understood through the medium of English words and English ideas, 
even by those scholars that have imbibed the greatest amount of 
such literature. And, in like manner, any translation of Scripture 
faithfully rendered into any other modern language, conveys the 
substance of the inspired message. 

Some persons, perhaps, may be displeased that I have denied our 
ability to understand the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures with exact- 
ness of technical significance. That we cannot so understand them 
may be made evident by this simple fact: we are unable, in the 
majority of instances, to know what bird, what beast, what plant, 
what mineral, what particular substance, is actually meant in the 
Scripture writings, and if we are ignorant on such points, more than 
as to a general comprehension, how can it be possible we can have 
the rigorous technical sense of an abstract word, term, or phrase, 
that involves a metaphysical, ethical, or philosophical significance. 
We can discern the substantial meaning clearly; as a technical one 
we cannot. 

It must be evident, from the exposition we have made, that there 
can be no argument maintained on the absolute amount of inspira- 
tion of the Bible text, whether in the Samaritan, Hebrew, or Greek 
languages, any more than we can maintain such a doctrine on our 
English translation. All we can maintain is, that the volume is 
substantially inspired, but not so verbatim et literatim; for the nu- 
merous causes that we have stated to have afiected the Scripture 
writings, added to the utter impossibility of ascertaining the precise 
import and significance of many words, and the nice peculiarities of 
idiom, that can only be completely understood by the instructed na- 
tive born citizen, and never are acquired by foreigners, must entirely 
debar any one of our day from pleading the inspired significance of 
any word which is to be used technically. Of whole passages a 
less amount of difficulty exists, yet, nevertheless, it does exist to 
such a degree, that though the substance of the passage may be 
clearly discerned, yet it must be ever attended with a greater or 
less degree of uncertainty as to its absolute and positively restricted 
meaning. 



243 

I apprehend, liowever, the conclusion to which we have hrought 
this section, may require me to add an observation of great impor- 
tance that may set the mind of any one at ease, who may feel dis- 
satisfied with my having impugned the plenary inspiration of the 
Scripture text. 

The Scripture of the Old Testament, as quoted by our Saviour 
and the apostles, is far less frequently quoted verbatim than in its 
substance or sense. They have farther quoted indifferently from the 
Hebrew Scriptures, or from the Greek translation of the seventy. 

In a great many instances they rather allude to the Old Scripture 
than quote; so that their practice abundantly shows, that even in 
the discharge of their inspired function, the sense or substantial 
truth of Jehovah's previously inspired communication was alone the 
matter of essential importance. And, indeed, I know of but one 
single passage in the whole Scripture quotations of the Old Testa- 
ment made by our Saviour or his apostles, that implies any particu- 
lar value in the very words themselves, viz. where he uses the ab- 
solute sense of the words, / am the God of Abraham, Isaac, &c. 
in his reply to the Sadducees, as a proof of the then actual existence 
of the souls of Abraham, &c., (Mark xii. 26, 27,) and which, if 
Christ had not thus quoted, I see not how we could have made any 
such inference.* But this, I believe, is the only instance in the 
Scripture, while in every other quotation Christ and his apostles 
have alone referred to the previously inspired Scripture, sometimes 
literally, but much more frequently only in substance. Now I think 
we have no difficulty in undertaking to say, we can guarantee the 
inspired substance of every part of Scripture necessary to our sal- 
vation. 

To show how easy a matter it is to assure ourselves of the absolute 
correctness with which the moral or religious doctrines of the 
Scripture have been preserved to our day, we thall state the subject 
in a very simple form, and which I trust will be satisfactory. 

We are taught in the Scripture, that we owe our existence to 
Jehovah, who rules and governs all things by a general and par- 
ticular providence. He has set our duties before us, whether as 
regards himself or our fellow creatures, in the most intelligible lan- 
guage, and he has informed us how we may expiate our sins when 
we break his commandments. 

These matters constitute the substance of the Scriptures, and 

* Archbishop Tillotson considers that Christ used these words to the Saddu- 
cees as the argumentum ad hominem rather than as being of direct authority. 



244 

with these substantial revelations every portion of the biblical writ- 
ings is in perfect accord, not only as a whole system, but in every 
particular of special doctrine. 

Hence it is impossible that the Scriptures can have been in any 
way perverted or corrupted, as to their communication of the reve- 
lations of Jehovah, for the whole volume is consistent throughout, and 
not a single precept or doctrine is anomalous to, or varies from, 
the fundamental principles that give rise to its numerous expositions 
and details. 

Under the above expression, therefore, sustained by the evidence of 
an immense collation of manuscripts, and all other legitimate sources 
by which we can investigate the integrity of the text, there can be 
no reason, whatever, to withhold an unhesitating belief, that there is 
nothing either wanting or corrupted in the Scripture writings, that 
is useful, much less that is essential to our religious salvation. 

Having now sufficiently laid before the reader the history of the 
mere literal text of the Scripture, I shall now proceed to make an 
exhibition of the doctrines, which I apprehend the Scriptures do 
clearly communicate to us for our religious instruction. 



CHAPTER XII. 

EXPOSITION OF TflE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN 

RELIGION. 

The Creator of all things, who has revealed himself by the name 
of Jehovah, has commissioned divers persons, at sundry times, to in- 
form mankind, that, those who will obey and serve him, according 
to his requirements, he will bless, and finally make them immortal 
in unchangable happiness. But that if men will disregard or dis- 
obey his appointments, he will visit them with an indignation and 
displeasure that shall have no end. 

The service that Jehovah requires of us, is, that we shall, as free 
agents, observe all his commandments and prohibitions as set forth 
in the Scriptures, not with any uncertain amount of obedience, but 
with our whole heart, and soul, and strength. 

But as Jehovah, in the revelation he has made mankind, recog- 
nizes our infirmity and weakness, to keep his law with an abso- 
lutely perfect obedience, so he has promised, that when we do trans- 
gress against his commandments, that he will nevertheless forgive 
our disobedience and receive us into favor, if we will, with sin- 
cere penitence, confess our fault, and use that propitiation for trans- 
gression, which he has appointed. 

This propitiation for sin, under the Christian dispensation, is in 
appealing to the mystical death or sacrifice of the Messiah, which 
has been announced to us as being sufficient in the sight of Jehovah, 
to atone for the sin of the whole human race. 

But Jesus, the Christ or Messiah, in addition to the mere fact of 
having made a propitiation for our sin, exists in a glorified state our 
mediator and intercessor before Jehovah, in the attitude of a high- 
priest, and possessing that function so exclusively, that there is no 
attainment of pardon and salvation, but through the mystic agency 
of his priestly office and power. 

And, finally, having thus access to Jehovah, through Jesus, the 
Christ, our sins are not only pardoned, but we receive from him 
spiritual influences, by which wc not only are enabled to discern 



246 

with greater correctness our obligations and duties, but we also re- 
ceive an increase of moral ability, to enable us to perform our duties. 

But that tire reader may fully appreciate the exposition I have 
thus made of the doctrines of Christianity, I must call his attention 
to the important circumstance, so much insisted upon by us in a 
former page, and which, in truth, constitutes the great theory of the 
Christian religion, viz. that man is undergoing intellectual and 
moral probation or discipline before Jehovah, under the theory of 
Christianity, as a free agent, in his individual capacity alone. 

In our former observations, it was not then necessary for us to 
enumerate the particulars of the theory of our Christian probation, 
but the time has now arrived that we should do so with all distinct- 
ness. To what was stated at page 12, it is now necessary to add, 
that our probationary discipline is not accomplished simply through 
the agencies of our own natural perceptions and powers, but that we 
are surrounded by spiritual influences, which have an action upon us 
through the medium of our own inclinations and will. Thus, as the 
influences of the spirit of Jehovah, by suggestions and co-operations, 
tend to exalt us, on the one hand, to a perfection that is above the 
ability of mere human nature to accomplish, so by suggestions and 
co-operations of the evil spirit, termed Satan, or the adversary, we 
are, on the other hand, encouraged and facilitated in our evil courses, 
until we ultimately become more evil and depraved than we would 
have been from the mere infirmity of human nature alone. 

It is sufficient to call the reader's attention to the above peculiari- 
ties of our probationary constitution. To discuss and vindicate the 
facts suitably, would require more space than the nature of our work 
permits- 

The doctrines I have now laid down, as the essentials of the Chris- 
tian faith, are taught us either typically or directly, from the begin- 
ning to the end of the Scripture. They are not only formally com- 
municated to us as being of divine authority, but they are the absolute 
scope and substance of all the reasoning and argument, wherever 
the inspired messengers illustrate or vindicate the scheme of Jeho- 
vah to mankind. 

These doctrines do not stand upon the technical signification of 
words or passages, but are simple communications, repeated it may 
be in a hundred different places of the Scripture, and are just as 
plain and intelligible, I apprehend, to the mere English reader of 
the common translation, as they were to those individuals who re- 
ceived the annunciation of these doctrines from the mouths of the 
prophets and apostles themselves. 



«47 

Of the truth of these doctrines, as depending on the absolute 
veracity and moral credibiUty of the messengers of Jehovah, we have 
already exhibited abundant proof; and of the substantial correctness 
of our translation with the revelations originally made, it is impos- 
sible to doubt, seeing the amount of testimony we have produced from 
all sources, confirming a system that unvaryingly calls for universal 
benevolence, and unlimited moral responsibility in the discharge of 
every duty, in which human nature possibly can be concerned. 

Whatever other persons may think of the exhibition I have thus 
made of the fundamental principles of Christianity, I feel satisfied 
that no individual is warranted to state them in terms less broad, 
and which I apprehend, must be approved of by the majority of 
Christian sects, for I have alone insisted upon doctrines, that, 
with the exception of the Socinians, perhaps all other Christian 
churches will recognize as being essential to our salvation. That 
individual Christians may have a more determinate view of the 
significance of these doctrines for themselves, is their indisputable 
right, but I consider it to be an exercise of intellectual responsibili- 
ty that concerns individuals alone as conscientious beings before 
their Creator, who will judge them as to any proper or improper 
exercise of their faculties before him in these particulars. For 
we must never forget that we are intellectual, as well as moral 
creatures, undergoing trial before Jehovah, and that intellectual sin 
may be as clearly exhibited by our presumptuous doctrines, as it 
may be in our want of faith as to those particulars that have been 
actually revealed to us. 

In attempting to ascertain the foundations of our faith and prac- 
tice as laid down in the Scripture, I have sufficiently shown that it 
is unjustifiable for us to build any doctrine upon technical meanings 
of words and passages, or upon single and unsupported passages, 
but that we must alone ascertain our faith and practice from the 
evident scope and argument of the Scriptures, which, though estab- 
lishing certain principles, are more or less general in their expres- 
sion, and scarcely, if ever, are restricted by the limits of any posi- 
tive definition. And the omission of any technical or rigorous pre- 
cision on such subjects, is in exact keeping with the theory of our 
intellectual probation, for it is our duty to exhibit in our faith and 
practice, the utmost amount of an intellectual, conscientious, and 
willing obedience to the requirements of Jehovah, as free agents, 
undergoing moral discipline before him. Hence there are certain 
matters announced in the Scriptures, which not to believe, would 
manifest either a want of honesty, or that we cherished unjustifiable 



248 

opinions which oppose the revelation of Jehovah. And again, there 
are matters which the Scriptures have introduced into our rehgious 
system, which for a man to frame into doctrines, argues presump- 
tion and self-conceit, in attempting to pass those boundaries, which 
our Creator has prescribed to human capacity. Every reflecting 
man must, therefore, be aware that as intellectual beings of limited 
capacities, undergoing a probation before the Almighty Maker of 
all things on the ground of an honest application of our whole capac- 
ities to a special subject, our condition is such that we are as 
likely to err in professing to believe too much, as we are in not be- 
lieving what we ought. 

It is, therefore, with great caution, that I have announced what I 
think to be the essential^ doctrines of Christianity, nor do I think it 
justifiable for any one not writing as a sectarian, to state them less 
broadly. These general principles, I think the Scripture authorises 
us to state very clearly, though I admit most distinctly, that men 
may differ very conscientiously as to the precise manner in which 
these general doctrines may be understood. Let every one consider 
St. Paul's caution to the Corinthians on this subject, "This is the 
foundation, let every man be careful how he builds thereon." 

As I apprehend the statement I have made of the fundamental doc- 
trines of Christianity, are sufficiently intelligible to any one who is 
the least instructed in the Scripture writings, I shall oflfer no com- 
mentary on them as an entire system. But as I have found that not 
only sceptics, but even many Christians, are involved in perplexity 
on the subject of our Salvation through Faith, and of the influences 
of the Holy Spirit, I shall attempt to show, by a plain exposition, how 
rational and intelligible these doctrines are, when they are fairly 
laid before an intelligent reader. 

On Salvation by Faith. 

There is no doctrine of the Christian religion, that seems to 
have perplexed the sceptical, and the deistical, more than the one 
which teaches "our salvation is of faith, through Jesus Christ." 
Though the difficulty of such persons, in not comprehending this 
prime dogma of Christianity, arises in some measure from their 
great ignorance of the theory and scope of the biblical writings, yet 
it cannot be denied, that another portion of their perplexity must be 
ascribed to the confused, not to say inconsistent notions, that many 
theologians have promulgated upon this most important doctrine.* 

*The only error that I will notice, is one of logic or metaphysics, and 
which arises from the false notions that men have on the subject of absirad 



249 

To bring the subject fairly before the reader, let us consider the 
enunciation of this dogma, '•'■Oar salvation is of faith, in or through 
Jesus Christ.'''' Here are two particulars to be considered, first, 
the meaning and import of salvation, and secondly, how this salva- 
tion is attained through Jesus Christ. Let us examine these sub- 
jects in due order, and first of the meaning and import of salva- 
tion. 

The word salvation means being saved or delivered; now from 
what is the Christian saved, or delivered? Why we are saved, or 
delivered, from the infliction or endurance of those judgments that 
God has denounced against our sins, or in other words, against our 
breaches of his commandments. 

As the theory of our salvation through Jesus Christ is therefore, 
remedial of our disobedience to the commandments of Jehovah, 
let us briefly exhibit the nature of the requirements of his law, for 
without we understand this subject, we cannot discern how the 
remedy is to be applied. 

It is unnecessary to make an exhibition of the law of God in its 
various details, it is sufficient to state in general terms, that it re- 
quires certain services from us, and certain things we are forbid- 
den to do. Certain of these acts involve our religious obedience 
to Jehovah as our God, and certain acts constitute our duty to our 
fellow creatures. But our duties, whether to God or man, are not 
required of us in any indeterminate measure or proportion, they 
are required of us to the utmost exertion and obedience of our 
whole intellectual and moral powers, viz. Thou shalt love, (i. e. 
serve with devout regard,) the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and 
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And thou shalt 
love, (i. e. regard by the same rule,) thy neighbor as thy self. 

It is, therefore, evident that we commit sin before Jehovah, not 
only in any actual breach of his commandments, but also whenever 
we fail to exert the utmost amount of our strength and obedience, 
and in so failing, we become liable to all those punishments that he 
has denounced against sin. 

But, notwithstanding the peremptory conditions under which we 

ideas. The theoloj^ians have, perhaps, universally spoken of faith, as an ab- 
straction which is impossible and absurd. There is no such abstraction as 
faith. Our acts of faith are all parlicidar, viz. we have faith in Jehovah's 
promises, we have faith in the influences of his spirit, we have faith in the 
atonement and power of our Lord Jesus Christ. But no man can consolidate 
all these several acts of faith into one definition. Yet the theolop:ians almost 
always attempt it, and the consequence is they are absolutely unintelligible 
to eveiy one who has not a practical knowledge of the subject, by which ho 
can dispense with their definitions. 
32 



250 

are thus required to observe and keep the law of God, he has, 
nevertheless, made provision for the imperfection and weakness of 
human nature, by having appointed, ever since the fall of our first 
parents, a mode by which we may have our sins against his law 
forgiven, and which, under the fulness of the Christian dispensa- 
tion, is stated to be by resorting to the atonement and intercession 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The whole theory of the Christian religion is, that we keep the 
law of God in all its requirements, such as he has enjoined it 
upon us, and that when we sin or transgress against his command- 
ments, we must, with all sincere contrition, repent of our sin, and 
ask Jehovah to pardon us through the atonement and interces- 
sion of Jesus Christ. This he has promised to accept, and not 
only so, but that he will bestow the influences of his spirit upon 
us, and will assist and enable us to keep his law more perfectly for 
the future. 

I do not see how it is possible to state the doctrine of our salva- 
tion through faith in Jesus Christ, more clear than this, more sim- 
ple in its enunciation, or more intelligible in the manner of its ap- 
plication. Nevertheless, let us enlarge a little, so that it be impos- 
sible to misunderstand the subject. 

Faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that a man shall intellec- 
tually admit that he was the Messiah, that he died for the sins of 
mankind, and that he shall hereafter judge both the quick and the 
dead. A man that only believes this, alone believes or admits the 
truth of the theory of the office of Jesus Christ, but he does not 
believe in him as set forth in the New Testament. 

When the apostles tell us to have faith, or to believe in Jesus 
Christ, it implies not only a belief in the theory of his office, (that 
the devils had,) but that we cherish a full undoubted belief or con- 
fidence that he can and will save those, who put their trust in him, 
from the punishments denounced against our transgressions, and 
that he can and will raise us from the dead, to a state of everlast- 
ing life and blessedness. 

Therefore, we are instructed to place our whole hope and trust in 
his all sufficient power to save; Jesus Christ can and will save us, if 
we will but seek his salvation, and follow his directions. 

If we do all this, then we have faith, or believe in Jesus Christ as 
is required by the apostolic writers. 

I cannot conceive how it is possible to express this doctrine in 
clearer terms, than it has been stated in the Scriptures, and yet not- 
withstanding its simplicity, there has arisen among the theologians a 



251 

controversy on another subject, which they have made to re-act 
upon the theory of our salvation in Jesus Christ, that not only con- 
founds the understanding, but has even in certain instances, more or 
less, set it aside, and has substituted a false doctrine in its place. 
This controversy has proceeded from a discussion of the actual 
value of good works, whether as involving the scheme of our salva- 
ion itself, or as acts of obligation on us, essential to our salvation. 

Those who have taken sides in this controversy, apparently are 
exceedingly opposed to each other. The one quote St. Paul, as af- 
firming that we are saved alone through the grace of God, altogether 
irrespective of our works, and therefore, they say, that good works 
are not essential to salvation. The other party contend that good 
works are necessary to our salvation, from the whole drift of the 
apostolic writings, so that we cannot be saved without them, and 
consequently they are meritorious before God. 

Either of these opinions, as Hterally interpreted, is erroneous, but 
when they are properly understood in their Scripture foundations 
they are both correct, that is, they are but one and the same thing. 

Nevertheless, the error of each party proceeds from different 
sources, the first, from not understanding what St. Paul means by 
the phrase, ice are saved by the grace of God, and not by worlis, 
and the second party to the controversy, have erred by not under- 
standing what is the true nature of good works. 

Let us, therefore, in the first place, understand the argument and 
reasoning of St. Paul, for if we comprehend this matter aright, the 
whole controversy will be settled in the most intelligible manner. 

St. Paul in proclaiming and vindicating the scheme of our salva- 
tion through Jesus Christ, was almost wholly engaged in contend- 
ing against the notions of the Jews, whether unbelieving or Chris- 
tian, as to an observance of the laws and institutions of Moses, 
which they considered of the utmost importance. Both Jews, and 
converted Jews, contended, under the theory of the Realists, that 
the institutions of the law of Moses were, in themselves, absolutely 
good and excellent, and as such recommendatory of the observer in 
the sight of God, who had indeed given an express sanction to them 
in their original enactments. Hence they taught that men could 
not be saved unless they were circumcised, and kept all the cere- 
monial appointments of the Mosaical institutions. 

But St. Paul contended, as a Nominalist, that there was nothing 
inherently excellent in the ceremonial law, that it should on that ac- 
count, necessarily, draw down God's favor or blessing on its ob- 
servance. He contended that whatever blessinfj or salvation God 



262 

had promised to the Jews, if they observed the ceremonial law in 
former times, was of his mere grace alone, and not from any in- 
herent excellence of the institutions or observances themselves. 

And surely, this doctrine is alone consistent with every principle of 
common sense, for since it is impossible that man can do any thing, 
that in itself can be useful or beneficial to God, who has made the 
world and all things in it, so if God has declared that he will ac- 
cept any service from man, it is of his grace alone, and not for the 
value or excellence of the work itself, let it be what it may. 

St. Paul, therefore, insists upon the fact, that it is impossible for 
any man to be accepted of his Creator, but by doing those very 
things that God has required, and none other. If a man, therefore, 
believes that Jehovah will be faithful in his promises, he diligently 
strives to be acceptable in his sight, by keeping all his command- 
ments; and the blessing or favor of God will be bestowed upon such 
a person, not because the work or action he may perform is of any 
inherent excellence in itself, and as such grateful to the Deity, but 
simply in the fact, that it was an act of obedience to the requirement 
of his maker.* 

In former times, urges this great apostle, it is true that Jehovah 
accepted ceremonial institutions, sacrifices, &;c., from the Jewish 
people, as covenant signs, and as atonement for sin, because he had 
of his own grace promised so to regard them. But now he has 
promised to accept and bless all those who, repenting of their sins, 
seek their salvation through Jesus Christ as the propitiation for sin, 
and as a mediator and intercessor for the penitent. And this salva- 

*Hence the utter absurdity of the theory of those moral deists, as they 
call themselves, who think they live acceptably before God, by keeping the 
moral law. Let us admit that they do observe all the requirements of the 
moral law to as great a perfection as it is possible for man. How does this 
commend them to Jehovah? They do not observe the moral law because he 
has required it, but because they think it right to so live and act. Hence 
they cannot expect to be accepted of him, because they have not sought his 
favor. The favor of God is alone promised to those who seek it of him 
according to his requirement. A moral deist, therefore, is a good citizen, 
and as such he receives his reward, but it is absurd to suppose that Jehovah 
will reward acts that are not performed specially with a view to his approba- 
tion, and as required by his revelation. 

What would one say if a man should ask of the king of France, a reward 
for a service he had rendered to the emperor of China. Is it less ridiculous 
for a man to suppose that Jehovah will reward actions not performed with a 
view to his approbation? 

But the deist may say that he does not believe in Jehovah; very well, — 
and where has that God of Nature, that the deists pretend to worship, in- 
formed them that he either sees, hears, or regards them? where has he prom- 
ised to accept their service? See our argument on this head at page 70. 

This fearful mistake of the deists, is a consequence of the doctrine of the 
Realists concerning their eternal and immutable essences. 



253 

tion is of the grace or favor of Jehovah, just the same in principle, 
as it was formerly in the mode of salvation granted to the Jews, and 
which indeed were actually but types of this very salvation now offer- 
ed in Jesus Christ. 

St. Paul, therefore, says most truly, that we are alone saved by 
the grace of God, for we cannot atone for our sins by any acts of our 
own device, be they what they may. Salvation, or deliverance from 
the judgments denounced by Jehovah against our sin, is a boon from 
God, offered of his own grace, and not a concession to any worship or 
service, that men may consider to be good and excellent. In other 
words, Jehovah chooses to pardon and bless the penitent who seeks 
his favor in the way he has promised to accept; there can be nothing 
done that can extort this favor from him, and consequently, he is free 
to dispense his pardon or his favor on whatever terms he may see fit 
to propose. It becomes the act of our free agency to decide, whether 
we will accept it or not. 

From what has been said, in our preceding observations, I appre- 
hend it will now be an easy matter to determine the relative value 
of good works, as they are called, in the theory of Christianity. 

We are required by the law of God. to serve him with all our 
mind, and with all our heart, and with all our strength, and to regard 
the interests of our fellow creatures by the same rule that we do our 
own: — consequently, if we fail in this perfect service, we commit sin, 
and to save us from the consequences of this sin, we are to seek the 
forgiveness of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But, can any 
one in his senses suppose, that after having had his past sin forgiven 
him, through the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ, that he 
has a dispensation to omit the observance of the law of Jehovah; 
whichTormally requires him to maintain every good work, with all 
his mind, and heart, and strength. 

If any one should be at a loss on this subject, let him consider the 
exhibition made by the Old Testament, that school-master, accord- 
ing to St. Paul, to instruct us concerning Christx If we examine the 
fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of Leviticus, we shall there find the 
particular propitiation stated that every penitent must make, when he 
had transgressed the commandments of Jehovah. First, the indi- 
vidual was required to make a penitent confession of his sin, and 
the necessary restitution or reparation where the case admitted it 
Secondly, if he then brought an ox, a lamb, two pigeons, or a small 
quantity of flour, according to his ability, and with them made the 
appointed propitiation, then Jehovah promised, that "Ais sin should 
be forgiven himy 



254 

Now did the pardon, which Jehovah accorded to the Jewish peni- 
tent after this atonement, release him from a future obedience to 
a law that required of him a perfect obedience in every good work? 
Who can suppose any thing so insane? It is just as insane to suppose 
that the forgiveness of our past sin through the atonement of Jesus 
Christ, dispenses with the least performance of every good work to 
our utmost abihty. 

Good works are required of us in every part of the New Testa- 
ment, with all earnestness, not as being of any inherent excellence 
themselves, as imagined by the Realists, but simply because they con- 
stitute the very acts of obedient service, that Jehovah has required 
of us. If we do not good works, then our works are evil, for while 
we live we must do one or the other, since there is no living in an 
intermediate or neutral condition between good and evil works. 

But there are many persons, who really do not know what good 
works are, for under false systems of philosophy or theology they 
consider them to be either simple acts of benevolence, such as alms 
giving, subscribing to, or assisting in charitable or religious under- 
takings, or in some special system of contrivances that they consider 
they may either perform or let alone, just as they please, but that 
when they do perform them with a good intention, that then they 
are meritorious. But nothing can be more erroneous than such 
notions, for by the requirement of Jehovah, we are to give alms, 
and promote the interests of morality and religion, to the utmost 
extent of our abihty as matter of duty, and he that forbears to do so, 
when he has the ability, is directly guilty of sin. We are required to 
do all that we can, and every man is able to judge of his ability. 
He that gives more than his means justify, or attempts to do more than 
his condition or influence can rationally be expected to accomplish, is 
a downright fool. Jehovah requires alone what a man can honestlj'^ 
and fairly do under his peculiar circumstances of life, or means, and 
does not require from him more than is consistent with his power and 
ability. It is not what we give, or do, that can be acceptable to Je- 
hovah, who made all things by the expression of the words — Let 
such things be: our acceptance with him, is alone in the conscien- 
tious and rational employment of the understanding, the aflfection3,or 
the wealth, he has given iis: this, and this alone, constitutes our ac- 
ceptable service. 

Seeing then that Jehovah has required the utmost exertion of all 
our ability, to wit, the whole heart, and mind, and strength, as the 
performance of mere duty, so it is utterly impossible that any man 
can excel himself, or do more good works than his Creator has re- 



255 

quired of him as his obedient service, and consequently it is absurd 
to the last degree, to suppose that we can propitiate for past sin, by 
undertaking to perform any number of good works. 

Having now shown, with sufficient clearness, as I trust, that it is 
utterly impossible that we can propitiate for our past sin or previous 
disobedience, by undertaking the performance of any superogatory 
good work, seeing that Jehovah has required all that we can possi- 
bly do under that head, as the mere discharge of duty, it, then, can- 
not excite the least perplexity of mind as to the true value of good 
works ill the theory of our Christian obedience. 

Good works constitute the very substance of our Christian exist- 
ence, they are the very particulars of our duty and obedience, 
and we are required to perform them with all our heart, and mind, 
and strength. And when we fail in the discharge of our duty, that 
is to say in the performance of good works, as all men do more or 
less frequently in their lives, then we are guilty of sin, and incur all 
the punishment denounced against sin. From this judgment we may 
be delivered if we confess our sins with all penitence, and seek the 
forgiveness of Jehovah through the atonement and instrumentali- 
ty of Jesus Christ, who has been revealed to us as a propitiation for 
sin, and as the mediator and intercessor for the penitent. 

Though nothing seems to me clearer than the preceding exposi- 
tion, which is absolutely consistent with the Scripture requirements 
throughout the volume, yet there seems to be so imperfect a com- 
prehension of the fact by the majority of mankind, that to remove 
any possible difficulty on this subject, I will exhibit a special detail 
of circumstances; for instance. 

During every day's life, a man has been occupied in a great va- 
riety of particulars; his temper has been exercised, his patience, his 
faith, his hope, his pride, his sensuality, his charity, his benevolence, 
his long suffering, &c. 

Now if he commanded his temper, was patient, was honest, was 
meek, was temperate, was charitable, was benevolent, was forbear- 
ing, &;c., his day's life was adorned with all excellence of good 
works, and if he failed in any of his spiritual or moral duties, i. e. 
if he was impatient, unfaithful, proud, intemperate, uncharitable, in- 
human, passionate, then his works, so far, were evil. 

But when a man's conscience informs him that he has sinned, that 
he has left undone what he ought to have done, and that he has 
done what he ought not to have done, how is that man to be for- 
given his sin? Clearly not by any work that he can do, for 
Jehovah requires every thing that a man can do, as hare duty; 



256 

therefore we can be alone forgiven by the favor or mercy of Jeho 
vah, which he has promised us if we will humble ourselves before 
him, and ask his forgiveness through the merits and intercession of 
our Saviour Jesus Christ. Therefore, nothing can be clearer than 
that our salvation is of faith, and is not, neither can be, of works, 
unless a man should keep the whole law of Jehovah perfectly in all 
its requirements, throughout all his life, and never transgress or fall 
short in a single instance, which we need not hesitate to assert is 
impossible to any finite, and, therefore, necessarily imperfect creature. 
There would be no difficulty in properly estimating the scheme 
of our salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, were not the great ma- 
jority of men, whether Christian or deist, of the sentiments of the 
Realists. The Nominalists can have no difficulty whatever in ap- 
preciating the truth of the case. 

The great bulk of mankind, unhappily, are like Naaman, the Sy- 
rian, who refused an easy and simple cure for his leprosy when it 
was announced to him by the prophet. Fortunately, he had some 
unconscious Nominalists in his suite, who rationally suggested, that as 
he would have willingly followed the direction of the prophet if it had 
been in some great or formal observance, so it would be but rational 
to obey him in the simple process prescribed. The consequence 
was, he was cured, not by bathing in Jordan rather than in Pharpar 
or Abana, but by his obedience to the word of Jehovah, delivered 
through the prophet. 

Let every one consider this case of Naaman's, for it well illus- 
trates the principle of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, as announc- 
ed by the apostolic writers. Whilst the doctrines of the Realists, 
whether deists or Christians, concerning good works, as matters of 
salvation, may be as well judged by the unaltered condition of those 
lepers whom we may suppose, having heard of Naaman's cure, went 
and bathed as he had done, in the very same place, and in the same 
manner, and yet without the least benefit, for Jehovah had promised 
nothing to their formal imitation. 

From what we have previously said, it would appear evident that 
we can render no acceptable service to Jehovah in any system of re- 
ligious service of our own devising. All we can do is, to perform 
those things that he has required of us, whether our performance be 
moral or ceremonial. 

But nevertheless, it is clearly evident from the Scriptures, that the 
mere performance of the moral or ceremonial duties required by 
Jehovah is not an acceptable service before him. He requires the 
intellect and the affections to be entirely interested in our obedience, 



257 

and he that falls short in this particular, falls short of that spiritual 
perfection which man is capable of accomplishing, and which is re- 
quired of us to the highest state of exertion which our natures are 
capable of making in the present life. 

To serve the Lord our God with all the heart, with all the mind, 
and with all our strength, we must be wholly interested in his ser- 
vice, we must aim at accomplishing his spiritual purposes, not only 
in purifying ourselves from every thing that may be evil, bit to 
walk before him in all tenderness of conscience, doing nothing, 
thinking nothing presumptuous, neither mistrusting the promises of 
God, but with all meekness, whether of intellect or carriage, to dis- 
charge our duties fearlessly and regardless of the opposition or preju- 
dices of men, or of any circumstances of trial by which we may be 
surrounded. 

Our endeavor, therefore, must be, to have our intellect and affec- 
tions in their healthiest state of excitement, progressing in a contin- 
ual moral improvement towards perfection, in a direction equally free 
from presumption or imbecility. 

And we have every encouragement to induce us to aim at the 
perfection that is thus implied, for Jehovah himself has promised 
his spiritual influences to assist all those who will seek his mercy 
and favor with honest minds. As this subject of spiritual influence 
involves the very essence and theory of our progress towards Chris- 
tian perfection, it is proper that we should express ourselves on this 
doctrine distinctly and clearly. 

On the Influences of the Spirit of God. 

There is no doctrine taught more expressly in the Scriptures, than 
that Jehovah imparts to the minds and consciences of those who 
obey and fear him, a spiritual influence, which, as a new principle of 
intellectual illumination, enables them to go onwards in the perfect- 
ing of their moral nature. 

How, and in what manner this Spirit of Jehovah operates on, or 
influences the human soul, we do not pretend to understand; all that 
we contend for, is, its truth as a matter of fact, and which, in its theo- 
ry, there is no diflSiculty of comprehending.* 

Though we cannot presume to make conjectures on this subject, 
nor to assign the limitations under which the Spirit of Jehovah may 

* Lord Bolingbroke has observed that "an extraordinary action of God upon 
the human mind, which the word inspiration is now used to denote, is not more 
inconceivable than the ordinary action of mind on body or body on mind." — 
Home, Introd. to Scriptures, i. 2. 
33 



258 

be supposed to influence the mind or the consciences of mankind, 
yet, as far as I can comprehend the Scriptures, I should apprehend 
it is not bestowed upon man without the individual is sincerely de- 
sirous of knowing the truth, and makes a greater or less amount of 
honest exertion to attain that knowledge. With those who thus 
exert themselves, the Spirit of Jehovah co-operates freely, and 
leads them into ways of righteousness and truth. I further appre- 
hend that the consciences of men are never overpowered by any su- 
pernatural inpouring of divine light, which thus converts the indi- 
vidual whether he will or not. 

Neither is this spiritual influence given to any one sensibly in a 
moment of time, but it is communicated imperceptibly and gradually, 
enabling the recipient to increase his exertions, which shall be re- 
warded with further spiritual influences, and greater spiritual dis- 
cernment and power. This condition of things is never susceptible 
of a termination, but lasts during natural life, unless the individ- 
ual, forbearing to exert himself, falls into sin, and does what is tech- 
nically called, grieve the Spirit of Jehovah. Then these influences 
are either diminished or wholly withdrawn, for the influences of Je- 
hovah's Spirit are not given to release a man from moral and intel- 
lectual exertions, as if he had become "a free man," but they add to 
the weight of his moral responsibilities; on the evident principle that 
he who has much, of him shall much be required, and the more he 
receives, the greater amount of intellectual and moral exertion shall 
be demanded from him. 

Hence the regenerated Christian is ever undergoing a purifying 
discipline before Jehovah as long as his powers remain capable of 
improvement, and he is just as obnoxious to transgress and grieve 
the Spirit of God in his latter day, as at the commencement of his 
spiritual life. That is to say, not that he would, perhaps, offend in 
the same things as at first, but that he may oflend in other matters, 
that, in spiritual transgression, are equivalent in amount of offence 
to the offences of a less perfect and regenerate life. 

With this subject as a matter of improvement, we have no present 
concern, and we therefore forbear to dilate upon the doctrine. It 
may be suflScient alone to say, that pride and self-conceit seem to 
be the vices of the spiritual, as they are of the natural world, which in- 
deed, as founded on the common constitution of humanity, ought 
naturally to be attended with similar phenomena. Hence the apos- 
tles so continually caution believers not to be high-minded, but to 
fear, to be humble before God, and to work out their salvation with 
fear and trembling, lest they should fall from their moral estate and 
condition. 



259 
And I do believe that as many fall from the higher states of spirit- 
ual life as from the lesser degrees, not indeed into reprobation, but 
into conditions far inferior to what they ought to have attained, and 
thus shall fail in the reward promised by Jehovali to those who shall 
serve him with a perfect mind. Now as to matters of immorality 
in life or conversation, it is needless to speak, for, on this subject, 
every one is fully instructed, but concerning those things which 
more immediately are connected with cherishing or grieving the in- 
fluences of God's Spirit, I am sure many do fail from not rightly 
appreciating their natural condition, as well as their spiritual stand- 
ing in the holy things of Jehovah. 

Such persons I would more especially put in mind, that they 
neither do, nor profess anything that is not distinctly of faith before 
God. That they neither profess, in the sight of Jehovah, nor man, 
to believe, or do things, as matters of religious duty, that stand upon 
the basis of human authority. If a doctrine is incomprehensible, 
admit that it is so; if it is ambiguous, confess it; if it is clearly true, 
believe and perform it; if it is indifferent, let it be so acknowledged; and 
if it be hurtful, testify against it. Let all this be done in the spirit 
of honesty, and charity, and let Jehovah take care of the issue. 

But, if any man does not discharge his duty, in these particulars, 
with all honesty, before Jehovah, he grieves the Spirit of God, for 
himself, and his doctrines become an offence to his fellow-man, 
against which proceeding we have the very condemnation of Christ 
himself,* Now, this offence, of which Christ speaks, is not simply 
in promulgating an erroneous doctrine, it is equally so in vindicating 
or allowing to pass without disapprobation, any doctrine or practice, 
that is either not true in itself, or being of no importance is never- 
theless so esteemed by others. For any thing, in religious worship, 
that is not of faith is sin, and by such procedure the Spirit of God is 
grieved, perhaps withdrawn, and strong delusion falls on the man to 
believe at last the thing that he once disbelieved, and account it a 
matter of grace and favor, when it may be the direct consequence of 
Jehovah's withdrawing his spiritual influences. 

*"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences 
come; but woe to that man, by whom the offence coraeth." Math, xviii. 7. 
Plain as this text is, I have met with some that did not understand it. It may, 
therefore, be expedient to state that the terra offence, does not mean any iWxncr 
displeasing to religious people, but the misleading those who were desirous of 
serving Jehovah correctly. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

OF CERTAIN DOTRINES HELD IN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, THAT ARE 
EITHER PRESUMPTUOUS, OR DESTITUTE OF SUFFICIENT SCRIPTURE 
WARRANT. 

As the author of an Essay, addressed to the sceptical, or to' the 
half instructed in the scheme of our religious belief, I cannot ter- 
minate my vindication of Christianity, without attempting to remove 
several objections, on the part of such persons, that arise from the 
prevalence of certain dogmas, advanced by many religious sects, as 
being doctrines taught by the Scriptures. There are many dogmas 
promulgated among various Christian associations, which are not 
only unscriptural, but, I apprehend, are, in certain instances, directly 
contrary to the Scripture. There are other doctrines that have a 
semblance of Scripture warrant, but which are determined by the 
theologians much too rigorously as to their precise significance; and 
again, other doctrines that are undoubtedly scriptural, have had 
technical significations attached to them, that can only be decided 
by the responsibilities of individual conscience, for they are of such 
a nature, that it is hardly possible for men to write or discourse on 
them without saying too much or too little. 

Before 1 commence with the consideration of such particulars, as 
above mentioned, I must observe, that although our Creator has 
made a revelation to mankind through prophets and apostles, as re- 
corded in the Bible, yet he has not become the less inscrutable in 
his nature and purposes, than before those revelations were made. 
He has only informed us of what he requires from us as duty, and how 
we may make propitiation for our sin, when we transgress his com- 
mandments, but he has not revealed to us any of the secrets of his 
council, nor condescended to justify the proceeding of any of his ways. 

Hut though Jehovah be thus inscrutable to us, it has ever been 
the vice of the human mind to attempt to penetrate into his purpose, 
and to show that his scheme is evident to our comprehension. The 
extreme absurdity of this presumptuous proceeding, which is too 
apparent with the great body of professing Christians, I will attempt 



261 

to exhibit, in a very brief statement, prefatory to the ensuing dis- 
course upon the unscriptural or presumptuous doctrines taught in the 
Christian churches, for I am confident that the greatest sources of 
false doctrine in the world has proceeded from the circumstance that 
a great aim of most theological teaching has been to show, that 
Jehovah is not unfathomable in his nature and purposes. 

The atheist disputes the existence and providence of God, be- 
cause he thinks that no wise or good man would manage the affairs 
of the universe in a similar manner, and the deist and Christian can 
only obviate the force of the atheistical argument, by rationally 
contending that the God who made all things is not a man, but a 
Being who is inscrutable to the finite creatures he has made. Here, 
then, it is distinctly urged, both by Christian and deist, that God is 
inscrutable. If he then be inscrutable, he should be so considered 
in all our speculations. 

Yet we shall immediately find the deist, who has admitted the in- 
scrutability of God in the atheistical controversy, attacks Christianity 
on the ground, that such and such doctrines of Christianity are in- 
consistent with the perfections of God — as if any one knew in what 
the perfections of God do consist. Before the deist makes this ob- 
jection against Christianity, he ought to vindicate God's providence 
from the censure of the atheist. 

The Christian, hard pressed by the objections of the deist, find a 
refuge still in the inscrutable nature of the Deity, and terms his 
antagonist presumptuous in undertaking to speak as if God was to 
be comprehended like man. 

And yet, in unfolding some sectarian scheme or other of the 
Christian religion, the Christian talks of God's plans and pur- 
poses, as if he was really not inscrutable, and undertakes to vindicate 
any objection to his scheme by arguments based on his conception of 
the nature of God, as if he was really instructed in such particulars. 
But, before the Christian is authorized to do this, he ought to 
have vindicated God's providence, and attributes, from the arguments 
of both atheist and deist, and not to have then asserted that God was 
inscrutable, for if God really be inscrutable, he is so in all things. 

But here I may be told, that the Christian, though he acknowl- 
edges God to be inscrutable, has a certain knowledge of him from 
the Scripture, by which we do really comprehend more or less of 
his nature, his attributes, his purposes, and providence. 

Now I deny positively that we have any such information, what- 
ever, communicated to us in the Scriptures. Jehovah has, undoubt- 



262 

ediy, made known to us the existence of certain facts or particulars, 
which we ought to receive as rehgious dogmas, but we have no in- 
tellectual light afforded us to comprehend these dogmas in their actual 
merits, even as single propositions, and infinitely less so as they are 
connected with ultimate purposes, and if we are ignorant of such 
essential points, Jehovah is as really and truly inscrutable in the 
Scripture, as he is in the natural world, when we offer that expla- 
nation to the atheist. 

But however manifest this may be, there are few Christians who 
do not argue upon the hidden purposes of Jehovah with as little 
reverence and humility, as if they understood these subjects with all 
distinctness, and alone when their theories are crushed by over- 
whelming objections, do they then exclaim that Jehovah is inscrut- 
able. This doctrine, however, they then only advance to silence 
their opponent, for they cherish their own presumptuous conceits as 
zealously as before, and consider them with all their preposterous 
anomalies to be actually true, though hidden in the inscrutability of 
Jehovah's purposes, and that in the end they shall be made manifest 
to all the world. 

I therefore contend, in strict accordance with the Scripture, that 
Jehovah is as absolutely inscrutable to the Christian as he is to the 
deist, and that there is no possibility of estimating any, not even 
the smallest of his purposes. And to come at the root of the whole 
error on this subject, I contend that all Scripture is not revelation 
to us. That part is alone revealed to us, which is distinctly and 
clearly revealed, and that many things which men have inferred 
to be revealed to us in the Scripture writings, are altogether un- 
justifiable inferences. It must be evident that it is impossible a 
divine message can be communicated to us, that may not, in its sim- 
plest enunciation, be connected by ingenious suggestion, with the 
nature of Jehovah and his purposes in making such enunciation, 
and where such communications have been so often made as they 
are in the Scriptures, it is no very difficult matter to make a long 
train of inferential doctrines, that shall be capable of being wrought 
into systems, that may appear to have more or less verisimilitude, 
with what are undoubtedly clear doctrines of Scripture. Neverthe- 
less, the anomalies that are apparent for the most part in every such 
system, and the great differences that exist between pious and in- 
telligent men as to their truth, are sufficient to convince the unpreju- 
diced Christian, that many of our theological doctrines, instead of 
being of Scripture authority, cannot be considered other than mere 



263 

inventions and teachings of men, and which in too many instances, 
have had an injurious influence on Christian society. 

Many of the theological dogmas, entertained at the present time 
in our protestant churches, bewilder and perplex, if they do not also 
more or less lead astray well meanmg individuals, who by the pre- 
judices of education, under the influence of sectarian doctrines, 
do not exercise that simple faith before Jehovah, through which 
they might attain to a greater spiritual perfection. 

Of the more important of such matters, are the extraordinary 
opinions maintained by many sects on the subject of Original Sin, 
Predestination, Election, &;c. and the still more presumptuous doc- 
trines taught concerning the nature of the Godhead, and of the 
person and functions of the Redeemer. 

It needs no apology from me to enter upon the discussion of 
these subjects, for the importance with which they are invested in 
the theological teaching of the present time, is such, that unless we 
have correct views of them it is scarcely possible that we can ex- 
ercise ourselves acceptably before Jehovah, according to the re- 
quirements of the Scripture. 

It shall, therefore, begin a discourse upon these subjects, with an 
inquiry into the truth of the doctrine of Original Sin, which is the 
source from which a great number of false doctrines and erroneous 
practices seem to have proceeded. 

It is a fundamental doctrine with the great majority of professing 
Christians, that in consequence of the transgression of our first 
parents in the garden of Eden, they became altogether corrupt 
and sinful in their nature, that by natural generation from such a 
source all their posterity are born with an inherent taint and pro- 
clivity to sin, so that we are by nature, not only averse to do good, 
but actually inclined to do evil. This radical corruption of our 
nature is by the theologians termed Original Sin. 

As this doctrine concerning the moral constitution of human na- 
ture, seems to be in a remarkable degree, contrary to the scope and 
argument of the Scripture, which no where seems to imply any 
moral inability in mankind to do right if they choose, I propose to 
investigate the truth of this doctrine, with all the attention that it 
merits, as being almost universally recognized among . professing 
Christians. 

It would require too much space and time for us to notice the 
several modifications of this doctrine, according to its enunciation 
among particular Christian sects; I shall, therefore, make use of 



264 

the Confession of Faith, of the Presbyterian church, which, in an 
especial manner, has avowed itself the defender of tlio doctrine. 

As the doctrine of Original Sin is based in the fall of our first 
parents, it is evidently necessary that we have a correct view of 
their condition before their transgression, that we may be able to 
appreciate their condition afterwards. I, therefore, shall preface 
the enunciation of the doctrine of Original Sin, with an extract 
from chap. iv. of the Confession of Faith concerning the paradis- 
iacal state of our first parents. 

"After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male 
and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowl- 
edge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having 
the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and 
yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of 
their own will which was subject unto change. Besides this law 
written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the 
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, 
they were happy in their communion with God." 

Though 1 have an objection to the ambiguity of the phrase, 
^^having the law of God written in their hearts,'^^ yet I accept the 
explanation given of it in the Confession of Faith, that it is synony- 
mous with that moral conscience of the heathens, which enables 
them to determine the propriety or impropriety of their actions to 
one another. Rom. ii. 14, 15. And with this explanation, I have 
no other objection to make against the proceeding exhibition of 
Adam and Eve's paradisiacal state. 

We now proceed to state the doctrine of Original Sin, and how 
it arose, from chap. vi. of the Confession of Faith. 

"Our first parents being seduced by the subtlety and temptation 
of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God 
was pleased, according to his wise and holy council, to permit, hav- 
ing purposed to order it according to his own glory. 

"By this sin, they fell from their original righteousness and com- 
munion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in 
all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was 
imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed 
to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. 

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indis- 
posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined 
to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." 

Though all Christian sects in the general, agree that mankind 



265 

are naturally in this desperate moral condition, and altogether un- 
able to do right, yet I have never heard, nor read a sermon, which 
is necessarily addressed to persons of all sorts and conditions, which 
did not call on them to repent and be saved, and which did not by 
its whole argument, either assert or imply that if any one should 
ultimately fall under the judgments of Jehovah, that it was his own 
fault and inexcusable folly. 

This being undeniably the case throughout all Christendom, or 
wherever the Gospel may be preached to the heathen, and if to 
this we add, that the Scripture itself calls on us universally to keep 
Jehovah's commandments, that it offers rewards if we will be 
obedient, and denounces punishments if we be disobedient, it does 
strike me to be the greatest of all inconsistencies, to be told that 
the doctrine of Original Sin is one of the fundamental principles 
of the Christian faith. 

But notwithstanding this appearance of inconsistency between 
the doctrine and practice of the Christian world, it cannot but be 
that there is great argument, or semblance of argument, to have 
induced them to have adopted a doctrine, which it is the continual 
proceeding of the church to contradict in the most unequivocal 
manner. 

On examining the Confession of Faith for the warranty upon 
which this doctrine has been constructed, I find many references to 
various parts of the Old and New Testament as authorities, but 
which, with all deference of opinion, I think to be wholly misap- 
plied. 

Of all the texts quoted by the Confession of Faith, the only ones 
that speak directly concerning Adam and f^ve, are the following: 

Genesis iii. 7, 9. "And the eyes of both were opened, and they 
knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, 
and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the 
Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam 
and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God, 
among the trees of the garden." 

Other texts are from the commentaries of the apostolic writers, 
such as the following: "For since by man came death, by man also 
came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive. The first man Adam was 
made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 
— 1 Cor. XV. 21, 22, 45, 49. Rom. v. 12, 15, &c. 

All the other texts quoted, I do not think worth while to extract, 
I have no objection to admit them, they amount to this: 
34 



'266 

1. That Adam and Eve produced children Hke themselves. 

2, That mankind are all mortal, being made subject to death m 
consequence of the punishment inflicted on Adam's transgression. 

.*! That all mankind are sinners before God, and that there are 
none perfect or righteous before him. 

With this exposition of the Scripture texts, advanced as the au- 
thorities for the doctrine of Original Sin, I ask where is it taught 
either in the Old or New Testament, that Adam and Eve "became 
dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul 
and body?" Where do the Scripturest each, that we, the posterity 
of Adam and Eve, are born "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made 
opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil?" 

Where is it said in any part of the Scriptures, that the moral na- 
ture and constitution of Adam and Eve, was changed or depraved 
by their lapse in paradise? Where is it said that Jehovah ceased 
to hold communion with man after this transgression of our pro- 
genitors? Did he not announce a Redeemer to Adam and Eve, and 
to their future prosperity? did he not visibly accept the offering of 
Abel? did he not tell Cain that if he did well he should be accepted? 
did he not accuse Cain of his brother's death? translate Enoch? 
and instruct Noah of the approaching deluge of waters? Who 
then shall tell me that Jehovah did not hold gracious communion 
with mankind after the fall, as freely as before, or until the race of 
men gradually corrupted their ways, so as to grieve his spirit to 
depart from them through their own wickedness. But as long as a 
single person lived faithfully and righteously before him, God held 
communion with him, and assigned as his reason for the salvation 
he gave to Noah, "Come thou and all thy house into the ark, for 
thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." — Gen. vii. 
1. See also chap. vi. 5 to 22. 

And, finally, on this subject, let me ask, in what moral or relig- 
ious particular did the condition of Adam and Eve in Paradise 
differ from our condition at the present time? If Jehovah held visi- 
ble communion with Adam and Eve, was not Satan also in paradise 
to tempt them? If there were means of grace by which they could 
be sustained in their obedience, so Satan was also at hand in para- 
dise itself to tempt them to disobedience, and notwithstanding all 
their advantages, the adversary did prevail, and seduced them to 
transgress the commandment given to them. Now where is the 
difference between the condition of Adam and Eve, and that of our- 
selves at the present time. We are required to observe the com- 
mand^j of God, and a reward is offered to us, if we are faithful. 



261 

On the other hand, we are continually tempted to sin, and the pun- 
ishment of spiritual death has been announced to us as the certain 
consequence of our disobedience. 

If Adam and Eve fell without any taint of Original Sin, why 
should our transgressions be considered a proof of the existence of 
Original Sin in us. Adam and Eve's transgression was not less in 
its moral obliquity than any of our offences. If they, therefore, 
sinned without Original Sin, it never can be inferred that our trans- 
gressions proceed from that source. 

As the Scriptures, in my apprehension, do not give any direct 
authority for the doctrine of Original Sin, I cannot easily explain 
how it first originated in the Christian church. It certainly never 
was a doctrine received among the Jews. But as I think we are 
authorized to make a conjecture on the subject, I venture to sug- 
gest, that it has arisen from the following circumstances. The 
theologians finding that mankind were universally sinful, whether 
by their own experience, or whether as clearly represented in 
the biblical writings, so in this undeniable fact they supposed there 
must be some radical principle of moral corruption in the consti- 
tution of human nature, to account why all should be more or less 
sinful before Jehovah, and none perfectly righteous. But as they 
were altogether in error upon the subject of the true nature of 
sin, they could not admit that Jehovah had made man and the 
world such as it is, for that would have been, according to their 
view, to make Jehovah the author of sin, and therefore they inferred 
that he indeed had made man in the perfection of his own image; 
that he indeed had made Adam and Eve perfect, absolutely perfect 
in their original moral constitution, and that all the wickedness, 
perverseness, and corruption of human nature, proceeded from an 
alteration of Adam's moral constitution after the fall; and this doc- 
trine has been so long cherished by the religious part of society, 
that it seems to be almost impious in their eyes to dispute its truth. 

But so far as the moral attributes of Jehovah are implicated with 
the constitution of human nature, the reference of our corrupt dis- 
position to Adam's transgression, does not vindicate Jehovah from 
having made man just as he is. For unless we deny his prescience, 
which the whole Scripture asserts, and the fulfilment of prophecy 
establishes, Jehovah knew that Adam would fall, and the courses 
that Adam's posterity would take. I think, therefore, that we need 
have no hesitation to admit that Jehovah made the world just as it 
is, and that the wickedness of men under such a supposition, does 



268 

not impeach his attributes one whit more than the theory which 
ascribes all our sin and corruption to Adam's transgression.* 

Now I apprehend that the whole source of embarrassment among 
men, and the sole difficulty that has given rise to the doctrine of 
Original Sin, lies in the absolute ignorance of the theologians con- 
cerning the nature of sin itself, or what it is that constitutes the 
sinfulness of human actions. 

The great source of error on this subject, arises from the preva- 
lence of the pestiferous theory of Realism, f which has established the 
notion there is such an essence as sin, that there is something in its 
nature that is absolutely hateful and offensive to Jehovah, and that, 
therefore, it brings down justly the judgments of a holy God upon 
the head of every transgressor. 

I, therefore, once more, as a Nominalist, take the field against this 
ancient foe, and contend that there is no such thing, essence, or abso- 
lute principle, as sin; but that sin is simply disobedience to the law 
or commandment of Jehovah, and further, that the offence of sin does 
not consist in the act itself, but in the intention or will of the agent. 
Or, according to St. Paul, where there 'is no law there is no trans- 
gression. 

As the Scriptures do not write upon sin but as a subject implicated 
with the moral actions of responsible agents, so it must be clear that 
the sinfulness of any act, can only be estimated by the law that 
regulates the moral proceedings of any class of intelligent beings, 
and as such is capable of an almost infinite variety of exhibition. See 
our discourse on Moral Distinctions, page 84, &;c. 

* Why Jehovah permitted Adam to fall, and why we, his descendants, are 
involved in the temporal consequences of his disobedience, I do not presume 
to conjecture. But are we in the consequences of Adam's transgression and 
temporal punishment, placed in a worse moral condition than iif he had not 
fallen? I apprehend not, for I presume if he had stood, then his posterity 
would have nevertheless endured a trial before Jehovah in their own indi- 
vidual responsibilities just as we do at present, and with an equal liability to 
fall as Adam did. If our liability to stand or fall be cceteris paribus equal 
whether Adam stood or fell, what is the real difference in our moral condition 
under either state? I should conceive that at the consummation of all things, 
it will be a matter of no moment whatever to us, whether Adam had stood 
or not. Our brief existence being then merged in eternity, the sorrow, the 
toil, che death, to which we were made subject, will have ceased, and the im- 
portant lesson thus taught us of the consequences of Adam's transgression, 
illustrating ulterior purposes of Jehovah, shall avail us profitably for ever. 

tAny terms of disapprobation that a good man can use, maybe applied to 
the theory of Realism, whether as estimated in their absolute essences and 
principles, or in their doctrine of absti-act ideas. Their opinions have led men 
into atheism, on the one hand, and on the other, they have nearly rendered the 
simplicity of the gospel unintelligible. We may, therefore, truly say of their 
doctrine, "inter muros peccatur et extra " Siud as such is worthy of all aversion. 



269 

All our ideas concerning sin are, therefore, nnerely nominal or 
relative to that constitution of human nature, which our Creator has 
been pleased to exercise, under the requisition that we obey his 
commandments, witli all our heart, with all our mind, and with all 
our strength. Consequently, if we do not render this perfect obe- 
dience to the law of Jehovah, we are guilty of sin. 

But the sin does not consist in the mere act itself, that is to say: 
there is no act in itself sinful, it is so, because we disregard the con- 
stitutions and appointments of God, regulating that act. That this 
is the case I think undeniable, for, I know not of a single act 
that may be performed by man, that is not under our present 
constitution, either right, or sinful, just as we conform to, or disre- 
gard, the appointments of our Maker, or if there be any particular 
matter, apparently hostile to this view, it can only be so, until the 
subject is fairly investigated, when it will be found to be strictly bound 
by all the peculiarities that constitute the rectitude or sinfulness of 
all other human actions, in the sight of Jehovah. 

As it is impossible for us to conceive of sin, but as the breach of a 
law that regulates our peculiar nature, a brief view of the actual 
constitution of human nature will exhibit, without any obscurity, 
the true nature of sin, and that it is wholly nominal or relative, and 
in nothing absolute. In other words, no act is sinful in itself, the 
will or intention alone makes the act sinful, according as it dis- 
regards the law of God. 

We are, in our intellectual and physical constitution, made subject 
to a variety of impulses, which may be all classed under two heads, 
those that pertain to the indulgence and gratification of the body, 
and those that pertain to the gratification and indulgence of our in- 
tellectual spirit. As we naturally desire to accomplish what is 
grateful, so we as naturally flee from, or avoid, what is painful or dis- 
agreeable. Our whole life is passed under the influence of things 
that either indirectly or directly influence the constitutional impulses 
of our being, and our moral responsibility is exercised before our 
Creator, by regulating the impulses of our constitution, according to 
his revealed law on those subjects. 

To illustrate this general view, I shall state, that, as our nature is 
constituted to be sensible to hunger, thirst, and cold, so our most 
pressing impulse is to gratify the constitutional desires thus excited. 
If, then, by any honest exertion, we procure the means to gratify 
our hunger, thirst, and to obtain what shall make us warm and com- 
fortable, we live honestly and acceptably, in the sight of God. But, 
if under the impulses as above stated, we steal from, or defraud any 



270 

one to gratify our necessities, we then are guilty of sin before Je- 
hovah. Now, certainly, the impulse of hunger, thirst, or desire of 
being comfortable, have nothing sinful in their nature, nor is the 
actual gratification of the impulse in any wise sinful, if we do so 
honestly and temperately, but if we act dishonestly or intempe- 
rately, then we sin. Sin, therefore, is not in the act itself, it is in 
the means we use, or the will or intention in using them, that is sinful. 

Again, we are constituted under the influence of sexual impulses, 
neither the impulse itself, nor the gratification of the impulse is sin- 
ful. If we marry, Jehovah has legitimated this intercourse, but if 
we seek our gratification in fornication, or adultery, it is sinful; be- 
cause, Jehovah has forbidden them. Sexual intercourse, therefore, 
in the mere act, is neither right nor sinful, it alone becomes either, 
according as we govern ourselves by the command of God, or as we 
disregard his commandments. 

The love of fame, the desire of eminence and distinction among 
our fellow-creatures, is neither sinful in the impulse, nor in the grati- 
fication; for, if we act with kindness, justice, humanity, or in any 
honorable mean to attain distinction, we are good Christians, and 
excellent citizens. But, if we attain to greatness or distinction, by 
a disregard of the rights or interests of mankind, much more if we 
violate and trample upon them, our conduct is sinful, precisely in 
degree with our disregard of divine law on such particulars. 

I presume the above illustrations will enable the reader to under- 
stand distinctly, that the impulses of our nature to gratification, are 
neither moral nor immoral. In the second place, there is no desire 
or impulse, that cannot be gratified with the approbation of our 
Maker, at the same time, that the gratification is sinful, if sought in 
a manner forbidden by his law. 

Nothing, therefore, I apprehend, can be clearer than that there is 
no such essence or absolute principle as sin. It is sin, only because 
it is contrary to law: therefore, St. Paul tells us, (Rom. iv. 15. v. 13. 
vii. 7.) where there is no law there is no transgression: "iVay, I had 
not known sin, but by the law,^'' S^^c. 

The sin of man, therefore, consists simply in his doing any thing 
that is forbidden by the law of Jehovah, or, in his leaving any thing 
undone that is required by that law. As intelligent beings, under- 
going a probationary discipline before Jehovah, things are brought 
before us, and our desires are excited by them, that our free agency 
may be exercised, whether we will govern our lives by the law he 
has revealed, and the blessings he has promised, or whether we will 
disregard alike his favor or his indignation. And, when we do fail 



271 

in keeping his commandments, it is not that we are unable to avoid 
breaking them, but because we will not.* 

Now take the catalogue of human transgressions: theft, murder, 
adultery, &c. A man has been tempted from time to time, in the 
course of his life, to offend in such particulars. From time to time 
he has resisted the temptation, and kept himself, by the co-operating 
influences of God's Spirit, innocent from crime; but at laist he has 
yielded to the temptation, and committed sin, not ignorantly, or from 
inability to resist, for, he has successfully, and repeatedly so, resisted 
the temptation, but now he has yielded to the temptation, because 
he chose to prefer his own gratification. 

That all men, without exception, are more or less sinful in their 
lives before Jehovah, arises not from any inherent taint or corrup- 
tion, such as imagined by the theory of Original Sin, but from the 
fact that we are intellectual and moral beings of an imperfect con- 
stitution^ undergoing a probationary discipline before him as free 
agents. As such, exercised on the perfect law of Jehovah, we some- 
times do right, and sometimes we do wrong. How could it be other- 
wise? The very theory of our probation anticipates our disobe- 
dience, as well as our obedience. What else could be expected of 
free agents under trial? If any man could keep the law of Jeho- 
vah perfectly J he is a perfect being, and no longer in an imperfect 
condition. But on this point we shall discourse more particularly. 
The theory of our moral responsibility before Jehovah is, that 
we shall observe and keep the commandments or ordinances he has 
appointed us, to the very utmost degree of our power and abilities. 
Such a scheme, therefore, could not require an obedience from us 
other than the very utmost exertion of our moral powers in every 
particular. For, to require a less degree of exertion than our ut- 
most intellectual and moral abiUties, would be to defeat the scheme 
that proposes to discipline mankind towards the attainment of the 
greatest moral and intellectual perfection that their faculties and 
powers are capable of reaching. Therefore the law of Jehovah re- 
quires from us, the service of our whole heart, our whole mind, and 
our whole strength, and to render a less perfect obedience than this, 
is to sin, much more so when we are guilty of any direct violation 
of his commandments. 

But if we cannot, in any manner, whatever, do more than God re- 

*Therefoie St. Paul informed the Corinthians "There hath no temptation 
taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not 
suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but wiJl, with the temptation, also 
make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 1 Corinth, x. 13. 



272 

quires of us under the head of mere obedience, and as we may, on 
the other hand, transgress in a variety of degrees by doing less than 
he requires, so no created being, much less one undergoing proba- 
tion as a free agent, can exhibit, continuously, a perfect obedience 
in the sight of Jehovah. For if such a being shall exert himself to 
the very utmost degree of his intellectual and moral powers, and 
never fail, not even in the smallest degree of his obedience, nor for 
a moment of time, surely such a being is absolutely perfect. I am 
unable to conceive how any created being can be thus characterized. 

I apprehend, therefore, the deduction to be conclusive that our 
inability to fulfil, in perfection of obedience, the absolute require- 
ment of Jehovah, proceeds from no praviiy or corruption derived 
from Adam, but from the limited nature of our faculties and powers 
as measured by the rule of an absolute perfection. In short, the 
same inability must characterize every class of created intelligences 
in the sight of Jehovah.* 

Now can any one pretend to say that the doctrine thus advanced 
weakens the obligations of Jehovah's commandments upon the 
consciences of men? Yet 1 have no doubt that some defenders 
of the doctrine of Original Sin will make such a charge. To 
repel any such imputation, let me, therefore, reiterate our view 
on this subject. We say the law of God requires the whole amount 
of obedience that man can possibly render, and admits of no relaxa- 
tion whatever in their obedience, according as their consciences, en- 
lightened by the Scripture, are capable of discerning where the obli- 
gation lies. And this is the only service that can be rendered by an 
intelligent being, for if a man exerts his whole mind, and soul, and 
strength to keep the law of God, it is all that he can exert. 

Our actual imperfection does not vitiate the value of our obe- 
dience if we are unconscious of being influenced by improper mo- 
tives. God has required the whole heart, and mind, and strength 
of man, but man is an imperfect creature in every capacity and fac- 
ulty. If this imperfect creature does give all his mind, and heart, 
and strength to the performance of his duty, he does exert all that 
he can exert, and as no one can expect a man to exert the strength 
of a horse or an elephant, so neither can he exert the moral or in- 
tellectual strength of a perfect creature. God has required all his 
soul and strength, such as he can exert it; and, as God can read our 

* Hence it is said in the book of Job, God putteth no trust in his servants, 
and his angels he charo;eth with folly. Job iv. 18. 

He putteth no trust in his saints, yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 
Job XV. 15. 



273 

thoughts, so no man can deceive him as to the measure of strength 
that lie could exert. 

When a man fails in exercising himself according to his measure 
of strength and knowledge, and against his own conscience, he com- 
mits sin, and it is only sin when he thus fails. The sin is only meas- 
urable by his knowledge of the law and the light of his conscience, 
and the least relaxation of his moral ability in observing the law 
becomes a sin, for the whole amount of his strength is required by 
his Creator. 

But, though the law of Jehovah requires a more perfect obedience 
than any human being has been ever found capable of exercising 
during the continuance of his whole life, yet the moral attributes of 
Jehovah are unimpeachable in making such a requirement, for he 
has appointed a propitiation for our transgression and sin, which he 
extends freely to every one who has failed in rendering perfect obe- 
dience, provided they be truly and heartily repentant of their wilful 
neglect or disobedience, and will seek his forgiveness through Jesus 
Christ, with a sincere resolution that they will, to the utmost of their 
strength, keep from transgressing in like manner any more, and to 
enable them to do this with greater faithfulness, spiritual assistance 
is promised. And with these views every text of Scripture accords 
that speaks of sin, righteousness, regeneration, sanctification. 

I presume I may here anticipate, from the Calvinists, an argu- 
ment in favor of the doctrine of Original Sin, on the ground that the 
Scriptures most expressly assert, we carmot save ourselves, and that 
our salvation is alone of God's grace, irrespective of any exertion 
that we can make to its attainment. I admit the apostles do say 
so; but do the apostles contradict themselves by this doctrine? for 
throughout the whole New Testament they call on men to repent 
and save their souls, which evidently implies an ability to do so. 
May we not, therefore, say the Calvinists have greatly misunder- 
stood the Scriptures? for it seems evident to me, that if any one ex- 
amines the texts quoted by the Calvinists, as proving human inability, 
he will find that they are those made by the apostles when discours- 
ing on the mere scheme or theory of human salvation, and not at all 
as concerns its practical operation. And their argument is very 
distinct and clear. 

The apostles argue that man can render no service whatever that 
can be acceptable to Jehovah, unless he has been pleased to say that 
he will accept that particular service. And if Jehovah promises to 
accept and reward any particular acts of faith or obedience, offered 
by mankind, i/ is an act of grace or favor from Jehovah, m the- 
35 



•^74 

clearest point of view; for how can the hlessing or favor of the Deity 
be extorted from him by any scheme of our devising. 

But though the scheme of our salvation be of the grace of Jeho- 
vah, irrespective of any human device or contrivance, the attainment 
of that salvation is the act of our free agency, for Jehovah has put 
it into our power to accomplish it if we will. That is to say, Je- 
hovah has constituted us, and the moral economy to which we be- 
long, in such a manner, that he leaves it to ourselves to determine 
our condition for eternity. He has made us, by his sovereign power, 
fre& to pursue what course we may please,* at the same time set- 
ting before us the consequences of an obedience or disregard of his 
revealed will. To influence our determination, he promises ultimate 
happiness, to sustain us in our temptation and trial, he promises the 
assistance of his Spirit to all who will ask that help from him, and 
when we transgress and sin, he promises to forgive us if we will 
seek it through the atonement and mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
If we then will make use of these means which he has formally re- 
vealed to our free agency, ?re shall save our souls. And if any one 
chooses to disregard this constitution which Jehovah has appointed, 
and neglect to use the means which he has announced, such a one 
brings judgment and condemnation on his own head by his own will 
and by the act of his own free agency. 

Thus, any apparent ambiguity of the Scripture expression con- 
cerning the grace of God in accomplishing our salvation, and which 
the Calvinists have worked up into a system contrary to the argu- 
ment and drift of the Scriptures, is reconciled both to the Scripture 
and to our sense and conscience, and no anomaly whatever ex- 
ists to prevent our understanding the whole subject. But by the 
Calvinistic doctrine, one part of the Scripture seems to contradict 
the other in direct terms, for it teaches that men cannot repent, 
nor save their souls, at the same time, that the Scriptures, from the 
beginning to the end, are full of requirements to men to repent 
and deliver themselves from the judgment announced by Jehovah 
against human transgressions. 

With this plain exhibition of the fallacy of the doctrine of 
Original Sin, I apprehend we are not required to discourse at large 
upon predestination, election, effectual calling, perseverance of the 
saints, and sundry other doctrines growing out of the theory of 
Original Sin. These all fall together by the exposition we have 

* The reader may refer back to page 21, where we have also discussed this 
subject in connection with another principle. 



275 

made above, for they are not taught in tlio Scriptures, and are but 
doctrines of men made through unjustifiable inferences. The word 
election, indeed, does occur in the Scripture as applicable to Jehovah's 
providence with individuals or nations in the present life, but has no 
reference whatever to eternity, as has been often shown by the op- 
ponents of Calvinism, though the perusal of the Scripture itself is 
alone sufficient for any one that looks to its scope and bearing, aiid 
that is not perplexed by the doctrine of Original Sin. 

Effectual calling and irresistible grace, are doctrines made by 
perverting conditional promises of Jehovah into absolute decrees. 
If any man will strenuously exert himself to obey the commands 
of Jehovah, he has promised to sustain and keep him, and this Je- 
hovah will do, as long as the individual perseveres in discharging 
his duties faithfully before him. But if that man relaxes aught, 
Jehovah withdraws his assistance, and if he wilfully continues to ne- 
glect or disobey, Jehovah will abandon him either altogether or 
until the individual repents of his sin and folly, and seeks the 
mercy and favor of Jehovah as it has been revealed to him through 
the ministration of Jesus Christ. 

Hence it has been said by inspired authority, that if any man 
draw back, Jehovah shall have no pleasure in him. 

He alone that perseveres in his Christian obedience until the end 
of his days shall be saved. Nothing can be more forcible on this 
subject than Ezekiel xviii. 20, to the end. 

The only possible source of embarrassment that can remain in 
the mind of any reasonable man on the subjects discussed in this 
chapter, I apprehend may be from a certain amount of phantoms 
conjured up by advancing the subject of Jehovah's prescience, 
which under the cover of a theory that may be indisputable, uses 
it to justify a perversion of the revelation he has made. 

Thus it is said, that as Jehovah certainly foreknows all things 
belonging to his own scheme and purposes, so whatever comes to 
pass, must be conformable to his appointment or intention, for there 
can be nothing contingent to his scheme. Therefore, as some men 
shall be saved, and as others shall be damned, so it must have been 
thus predestinated or ordained by Jehovah, for all things must have 
been foreknown to him in the contemplation of his ultimate pur- 
poses. 

Now I admit it to be true, that Jehovah does foreknow all 
things from the beginning to the end, and that he knew who would 
be saved, and who would be damned, from the crcntion of the 
world. But what has this final unhaj)py state of the wicked to do 



276 

with predestination as urged by the Calvinists? In what manner 
does it justify any one to state, that the pecuHar doctrines of their 
system are taught in the Scriptures? Jehovah has appointed an 
end and consummation to the scheme of human existence, and at 
the day of judgment we arrive at that consummation. Then the 
righteous shall be blessed in heaven, and the wicked and impenitent 
shall be cast into hell. 

To this consummation, therefore, we must come, whether the 
doctrines of Calvinism be true or false. But the Calvinist will 
reply, did not Jehovah foresee who should be saved and who 
should be condemned? I answer, assuredly he did. Again I am 
told, then Jehovah has made some men that shall be damned? 
I reply, so it seems, alas it is undeniable, but this does not justify 
the doctrines of the Calvinists, it does not disprove that the damned 
might have been saved if they would. This fearful consummation 
alone impeaches the goodness, mercy, and justice of him who has 
created a sentient being to be damned. 

Now though I know not how to vindicate, in any manner, the 
justice and goodness of Jehovah from this seemingly unavoidable 
imputation; seeing that some shall be damned, yet I unhesitatingly 
assert, that the Scripture both implies and states, that this fatal 
judgment has been incurred through the perverseness of the un- 
happy individual himself. Whereas Calvinism throws a direct 
imputation upon Jehovah, as having ordained men expressly for 
damnation, and from which there was no escape possible by the un- 
happy creature. 

Our inability to reconcile the final judgment of Jehovah upon the 
wicked, with those attributes of goodness, mercy, and justice, with 
which he is every where invested in the Scriptures, implies no pecu- 
liar objection either to our argument against Calvinism, or as might 
be suggested by the deists, against the theory of Christianity itself. 
We have shown, throughout our whole discourse, that the nature, 
the attributes, and purposes of God, are wholly imcomprehensi- 
ble to man, and I trust we have also sufficiently shown in a former 
page, that it is utterly impossible for us to conceive of any rule or 
principle whatever, whereby we can appreciate the rectitude of 
any of God's proceedings. If the reader has lost sight of that ex- 
hibition, we again refer him to pages 50 and 90. 

But though we are utterly unable to comprehend Jehovah's pro- 
ceeding with the impenitent and wicked, there is nothing to forbid 
our firm belief, that however unintelligible this matter may be to 
us at the present moment, that the time will come in its proper 



277 

place, when we shall be satisfactorily convinced that he is just in 
all his ways, and righteous in all his doings. At the present time, 
it is our duty to live acceptably before him, and to use every means 
in our power to avoid that condemnation, which he has denounced 
against those who despise his word. 

In consequence of the seeming contradiction of eternal punish- 
ment to the excellent attributes of Jehovah as a being of infinite 
goodness, some persons have undertaken to justify the Deity from 
the imputation, that such a theory would attach to him in the sight 
of men, by teaching that future judgments are not eternal, but 
temporary, and that after enduring a certain amount of purifying 
suffering, all men, and even the devils themselves, shall be par- 
doned, and received into the favor of Jehovah. 

But what authority have these presumptuous teachers to thus 
expound the council and purposes of Jehovah. Shall that be con- 
sidered argument, which is limited to showing, that words which 
express eternity at one time, at other times are used in a temporary 
or restricted sense? and shall this justify such persons to consider 
themselves authorized to use those words in whatever sense they 
may see fit? Such a proceeding as this is absurd. All that any 
reasonable man can admit, is, that their doctrine may, perhaps, not 
be false; we could wish it were true, but that any such system 
is implied in the Scriptures is certainly false. 

Instead of implicating our presumptuous doctrines 'with the 
scheme of the inscrutable God of the universe, let us alone 
confine ourselves to doing the things he has enjoined upon us. 
The Scriptures alone require us to obey and serve Jehovah, and 
not to fathom his councils. Something must be left to exercise our 
faith towards our Creator, while we are in this our probationary 
state, and it is our duty in all things to act humbly and reverently, 
and if we are called on to vindicate the ways of God to man, it is our 
duty to honestly confess our inability to do so. And is it any im- 
putation to the scheme of Christianity, to acknowledge that we can- 
not comprehend the final purposes of our Creator? Surely the 
absurdity of such a supposition, is its sufficient reply. We who 
advocate the simple truth of Christianity, do not pretend to ex- 
pound or justify the ways of our Creator in a single particular. 
What we desire to accomplish, is to furnish an amount of evidence 
sufficient to induce men to seek the salvation announced in the 
Scriptures, or to flee from the judgments it has revealed against 
those who despise its warnings. 

I have already stated in a preceding page, that among the un- 



27 « 

warrantable doctrines maintained at the present day, are those that 
undertake to define the Godhead, and determine the conditions of 
this inscrutable existence. 

The very great majority of all Christian sects, are unanimous in 
asserting, that the Godhead, though consisting of three persons, is 
nevertheless one God. This doctrine is called the doctrine of the 
Trinity. 

Though I do not regard, in the slightest degree, the circumstance 
that this doctrine has been maintained from an early age, nor that a 
great majority of learned and pious men have professed their belief 
in its truth, yet I do feel myself restrained by a sense of devotional 
propriety, from going into that formal discussion of the subject, 
which the assertions of preceding writers seem to require. Yet, as 
I apprehend, there is much error involved in our doctrines on this 
subject, I will endeavor to express myself both reverently and dis- 
tinctly, according to those views which, I consider, the Scripture 
clearly authorizes us to take. 

Nothing can be clearer, nor more distinctly expressed in the 
Scripture, than that God, meaning thereby Jehovah, is one. — There 
IS BUT ONE God. — This is also the doctrine of the Trinitarians: there 
is but one God, though there are three persons in the Godhead. 

But, do the Scriptures any where use the word Trinity? do the 
Scriptures any where say, there are three persons in the Godhead? 
No, not in a single text, for the oft-quoted passage of 1 John v. 7. 
has been, long since, shewn to be a corruption, and is admitted to be 
so by all the more eminent critics of the present day. 

The doctrine of the Trinity, then, is one which men have inferred 
from the Scripture writings, and is not a doctrine of formal revelation. 

Now, inferential doctrines cannot be matters of salvation, for if 
they are of inference, they are not of revelation, they depend upon 
the value that every particular man gives to his judicious or injudi- 
cious inference, and the world has been agitated for fifteen hundred 
years by the violent and unseemly conflicts of men upon this sub- 
ject, without seeming to perceive they were engaged in a most pre- 
sumptuous controversy, with which they had no concern. 

Is it not amazing, to one that considers this subject reverently, that 
the nature of the Godhead, the most incomprehensible and inscruta- 
ble of all possible things, should be a matter of warm, and often 
intemperate, discussion, by the presumptuous race of mortal men? 
and that we are called on from time to time to worship Jehovah, 
under the exhibitions of polemic theologians, who have no other 
ground of authority for their doctrine, than inferences they make 



279 

from passages of the Scripture, which, so far from being clear in 
their import, are vehemently impugned by others holding opposite 
opinions. 

I, therefore, shall go into no discussion of this subject, but shall 
alone urge, that the Scripture expressly states, that there is one 
God, and one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus 
Christ. But, this the Trinitarians will say is their faith also, — well, 
then let it be so, in all its simplicity. Why add the Trinita- 
rian theory to it? Will you say the Scripture teaches it by clear 
inferences? Then hold it as a doctrine of your inference, but do not 
make it an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, and do not pre- 
sume formally to address, in public prayers, the personified Trinity, 
but let us pray to Jehovah, as he has revealed himself distinctly, and 
not pray to him, under an appellation, that may he an act of highly 
presumptuous will-worship, since he has not revealed himself to us 
as a triune God, but as the God and Father of our Lord and 
Saviour, Jesus Christ, whom he, of his infinite mercy, sent into 
the world, from a state of pre-existing glory, that we might be saved 
from our sins. 

Now, why shall the nature of the Godhead be made a matter oi 
our doctrinal faith, more than the equally incomprehensible doctrines 
of the Monophysites, or of the Monothelites, which so long distracted 
the ancient Christian world? Why is it, that mankind, exhausted 
by the vain attempt to understand such subjects, have agreed to dis- 
miss these last altogether, and have ceased to compel the human 
mind to take sides on subjects which the Scriptures have not deter- 
mined? Why should the doctrine of the Trinity, be made of more 
importance than other incomprehensible subjects? Why not let it 
rest, as it was before the Council of Nice? Indeed, does not our own 
conscience, when not excited by the Trinitarian controversy, natu- 
rally take this very course? Thus, for instance, in the prayer book 
of the Episcopal churches, of the United States, and which, in this 
particular, does not differ from the practice of all other Protestant 
churches, I have found, that of the prayers and collects in that book, 
as employed in the public y/orsh\p, thirty-one only adore the Trinity, 
in formal or implied terms, while one hundred and twenty-eight* 
involve no hypothesis on the subject, being simply addressed to Je- 
hovah, through the name, or instrumentality of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Now, are these latter prayers and collects less effectual at the 
mercy-seat of God, than those which invoke the Trinity? Who can 

*As I did not consider it material to be critically correct with these num- 
bers, I did not go over the computation a second time. 



280 

be so absurd as to suppose this? Are those prayers that are ad- 
dressed to the Trinity equally efficacious? Who will dare affirm 
this? for, where have we a single passage of Scripture, which au- 
thorizes a formal address to the Trinity? Even allowing the doctrine 
may be true, it is so as abstracted from all of our devotional exercises; 
but, if it be not true, and fifteen hundred years of prejudice and 
church authority have not been able to establish that truth? — if it 
be not true, I ask, in what manner shall we account at the bar of 
God for our presumption on this subject? 

As the Redeemer has been revealed to us in his mediatorial fiinc- 
tions alone, so it is our duty to receive him in that capacity alone. 
If he acts as our mediator and intercessor with the Father, during 
the present dispensation of things, what concern of ours is it, what 
the relation of the Father and Son was, and shall be in eternity? 
Cannot men see their presumption in this matter? Jehovah has not 
required of us to fathom the incomprehensibility of the Godhead, 
but to perform duties that we do understand, and to seek our salva- 
tion through Jesus Christ, who, having made an atonement for our 
sins, now exists our mediator, until the consummation of human 
affairs shall take place. 

But if the doctrine of the Trinitarians be presumptuous and con- 
trary to the exhibition of the Scripture writings, what must we say of 
that of the Socinians or modern Unitarians? I am at a loss how to ex- 
press myself on this subject; on the one hand they profess to found 
their belief upon the Scriptures, and largely quote it to prove their 
doctrine. On the other hand, as 1 understand the Scriptures, I have no 
hesitation in stating my opinion, that their expositions and doctrine, 
in its important features, are directly contrary to the whole scope 
and tenor of the Scripture writings. I have no right to impugn the 
honesty or sincerity of the Socinians, but I am perfectly at a loss 
how to reconcile their opinions with the Scriptures. Judging by 
the light of my own understanding and conscience, I do consider 
the doctrines of modern Unitarians to be entirely subversive of the 
Christian religion, so far as I can comprehend the subject, and this 
being the case, I will not hesitate to bear my testimony against such 
opinions. If the Scriptures do teach us, and I am clear on this 
point, that salvation from our sins is only to be attained through the 
sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and in virtue of that intercession 
that he makes continually with the Father for us, so I cannot con- 
sider the Unitarian doctrine other than an absolute departure from 
the theory of the Scriptures, and a formal rejection of that salva- 
tion which God has freely offered to us. To reject the mode that 



281 

God has appointed, leaves no alternative and no hope. What then 
shall the end of this be? 

In the course of a very general reading upon the moral and re- 
ligious speculations of men, I have been often disturbed by the ex- 
treme difference that sometimes existed between their views and my 
own; but with none have I been so much disposed to loose patience 
as with the Socinian writings. The excellent archbishop Tillotson, 
on one occasion, speaks of Socinus as "a great master of reason," 
and which I shall concede to be the fact from such commendation, 
for I have never seen his works, but I defy any other sect of Chris- 
tians, except the Unitarians, to read the works of Priestly, of Bel- 
sham, Evanson, and other of their champions, without being amazed 
at their reasons, and shocked with their apparent presumption. 

But, though I consider the Trinitarian doctrine to want Scriptural 
authority, and that of the Socinians to be altogether contradictory 
to the Scriptures, I camiot advocate the hypothesis of the Arians. I 
cannot but consider it presumptuous to determine so incomprehen- 
sible a subject according to any hypothesis. 

Whatever may be the nature of the Godhead, and how it exists 
as characterized in eternity, we are alone concerned with the pres- 
ent dispensation of things, which, as measured by time, have a be- 
ginning and an end. In this dispensation the Father is represented 
to us in one light, the Son, in another, and in these conditions of 
being we are to regard them, until the consummation of the now 
incomprehensible purposes of Jehovah shall be fulfilled, (see 1 Cor. 
XV. 24 to 28.) When this dispensation shall have terminated, it 
may then be proper to regard the Godhead in a different light; at 
present it is our duty alone to regard them as they are at present 
exhibited to us. Now most assuredly we must at present regard 
our Redeemer in the light of our high priest, mediator, or interces- 
sor before Jehovah, and it is wholly irrelevant to our religious obli- 
gations to determine what our Redeemer was before the present 
constitution of things, or what he shall be hereafter. It is our du- 
ty to exercise ourselves on this subject in its direct practical appli- 
cation, and to forbear adventuring on points with which we have no 
concern, and on which, the more we speculate the more presmnp- 
tuous we become. On this subject, the less a man ventures the 
more rational he is. On this subject, at least, '^ciiriositas reum facity 
non peritum.^^* 

In the next place, I think it impossible for us to have any distinct 

• Curiosity makes a man criminal, not wise. 
36 



2B2 

notion whatever as to the manner in which our salvation has been 
accomplished by the Redeemer. The only light thrown upon the 
subject, exhibits it as having been attained through his sacrificial 
death, which is remarkably confirmed by the typical sacrifices of 
the old law. Yet I hold any one presumptuous that undertakes to 
restrict the scheme of our salvation to those particulars alone that 
are communicated in the Scripture writings. The propitiation for 
human sin by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is a matter that 
belongs alone to the impenetrable council of Jehovah. He has, 
both by the ministry of the Redeemer and of his apostles, informed 
us that the atonement has been made, that the propitiation has been 
accepted, and that Jesus Christ, vested with power to save, ever ex- 
ists to bestow the salvation of Jehovah to all who will ask it of him. 
This being the fact, why should we perplex ourselves to know 
how our salvation has been accomplished. 

To my apprehension, this view of our Saviour's atonement is the 
very one recommended by St. Paul when he expressed himself in 
the following manner, Rom. x. 6 to 9. 

But the righteousness (this word ought to be justification) which 
is of faith, speaketh on this wise. Say not in thy heart who shall 
ascend unto heaven, that is to bring Christ down from above? 

Or, loho shall descend into the deep, that is to bring up Christ 
again from the dead? 

But what sayeth it? the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and 
in thy hearty that is the ivord of faith which we preach. 

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
shall believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead^ 
thou shalt be saved. 

In other words, St. Paul observes, do not concern yourselves how 
Christ descended from heaven, nor how he again ascended to his 
glory; believe the fact that he did descend, and that he again as- 
cended with power sufficient to save as many as shall call upon him. 
Now cannot men be satisfied with believing the truths of those 
facts, that Jehovah has announced simply as facts, and abstain from 
systematizing them into doctrines supported by theological assump- 
tions of abstract principles? Can we not consent to leave such 
matters as we do the doctrine concerning the resurrection of the 
body from the grave? This no one pretends to know how it is 
to be accomplished. The body has been burnt to ashes, and the 
ashes scattered by the winds, yet we have no doubt that this very 
body can be raised at the day of judgment, because Christ has said 
he will do so, and we believe him able to do what he has promised. 



283 

Now as no theologian has undertaken to make a doctrine of relig- 
ious faith upon this subject, the fact stands clear and distinct to us, 
as a matter of faith, exercised upon a divine promise. Let us reduce 
all other speculations and religious doctrines to the same condition, 
and the world will be enlightened by getting rid of an accumulated 
mass of theological presumptions that have been, for centuries, piled 
up on the revealed word of Jehovah. 

The recommendatory exhortation of Moses to the Jews, (Deut. 
xxix. 29,) is remarkably in point on this subject of making- doc- 
trines out of the intimated purposes of Jehovah, and should never 
be forgotten. ^'■Secret things belong unto the Lord our God, hut 
those things which are revealed, belong unto us, and our children 
for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.'''' 

Now what Jehovah has revealed to us, are those things that are 
positively and expressly revealed for the obedience of our faith, 
and it is altogether unjustifiable to consider that the various in- 
ferences, which may be deduced from expressions necessary to 
make the divine communications intelligible, shall also be regarded 
as revelations of Jehovah addressed to our faith. Every one 
acknowledges the absurdity of supposing Jehovah to be in a human 
form, though he speaks of his eyes, his ears, and his hands; and why 
should we hesitate to consider that he, in like manner, often addresses 
us in phrases of similar purport, in the communication of direct pre- 
cept or prohibition, through the metaphor, or condescension to hu- 
man intellect, may be less evident. 

The manner in which I have examined the preceding doctrines 
of men concerning the Godhead, seems to require me not to close 
the subject without a few observations on the personality of the 
Holy Spirit. 

Though the Trinitarians in all the creeds of their several sects, 
assert the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, 
the assertion is without scriptural warrant. The Scripture expressly 
says, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, a doctrine which 
the Greek church has ever maintained against the corruptions of 
the church of Rome, and whicii even in the days of their greatest 
absurdity, the Greeks have never abandoned. 

In every passage of Scripture, the influences of the Spirit are 
represented to proceed from Jehovah, though Jesus Christ has been 
made the agent of communicating it to mankind, since his exalta- 
tion to heaven. I have already said what was necessary on this 
subject, in page 257, and to which the reader is referred, in case 
he may think it necessary to connect what is here said. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

ON THE AUTHORITY AND CONSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN 

CHURCH. 

However unwarrantable a doctrine may be, or however per- 
nicious its influence may be, it will be almost useless for individuals 
to controvert its obligations upon the understanding and conscience 
of men, so long as such doctrines are maintained by the authority 
of the churoh. 

This word "the Church," which embodies in itself a history of the 
most extraordinary principles and events that have ever controlled 
the human mind, exerts through the medium of ancient prejudices, 
so astonishing an influence at the present time, that little improve- 
ment can take place with mankind, until they have correct notions 
of those institutions, through which power has been exerted that 
has changed the Christian religion from its beautiful simplicity, in- 
to a system both complex and contrary to its express theory. 

It is impossible from the prescribed limits of our Essay, to make 
any investigation into the ancient history of the primitive Chris- 
tians, and their successive departures from the simplicity of the 
faith as revealed through the apostles of Jesus Christ. We must 
suppose the reader more or less acquainted with those subjects, 
that gradually established the bishops of Rome as lords over the 
consciences of the Christian world, and of those circumstances that 
induced the reformation, and led to the establishment of the various 
sects included under the denomination of Protestants. We have not 
the space necessary to make any exposition on these subjects; our 
business is to take up things as we find them at the present time, and 
to make those inquiries and those observations, that shall be of 
practical importance to us in this our day, and in this our time of 
probation before Jehovah. 

However anomalous the constitution of the various ecclesiastical 
associations of Christendom may be, they are nevertheless in the 
sight of their respective adherents, all consecrated bodies, and in an 
especial manner, are termed the Church; by which term men 



285 

commonly understand not the whole body of believers in Jesus Christ, 
but their ecclesiastics alone, or at farthest, their ecclesiastics, and 
that portion of their lay population who conform implicitly to all 
that the ecclesiastics require of them. 

I shall express no opinion as to how much, or how little scrip- 
tural warrant, the different Protestant theologians may be able to 
produce in favor of their several systems. With this subject I have 
no present concern; my object is to discover who, and what is the 
church, and whence that authority of the church is to be derived, 
by which so much both of good and evil has been accomplished 
in the world. 

It is sufficiently well known to every reader of the New Testa- 
ment, that neither our Saviour, nor any of his apostles, have given 
us the least scheme or draft of a constitution for a visible church. 
Not only have they forborne to make any formal rule on this sub- 
ject, but even their mention of the religious assemblies of their dis- 
ciples are so very vague and incidental 5 that the most opposite in- 
ferences have been made by men from the mere facts themselves. 

That there was no corporation of ecclesiastics constituting the 
Church, technically speaking, in the days of the apostles, nor that 
they ever contemplated the existence of any such body, seems fur- 
ther evident from the repeated warnings of the individual apostles to 
Christian believers, concerning the false doctrine that they predicted 
would be preached among men, in after times. 

Yet, in no one instance, do the apostles as a body, ever interfere with 
a claim of spiritual power, and in no one instance, do they ever refer 
believers to an appointed or technical church, to determine what might 
be heresy, and false doctrine, in future time. On the contrary , they 
entreat the people to judge of all such matters for themselves, and to 
take great heed lest they fall into any error. 

When we consider the solicitude expressed by the apostles on such 
matters, and the cautions, so frequently repeated to the people, to 
examine these points for themselves, according to the Scriptures, it is 
preposterous to imagine, that there either was, or was ever intended to 
be, a church to determine any matter pertaining to the duties of the 
Christian profession. Otherwise, the apostles would most certainly 
have instructed believers to consult the Church, to hold fast the 
doctrines of the Church, and in all matters to be obedient to the 
Church.* 

*This is remarkably evident from the fact, that Christ and his apostles did 
recommend their followers to settle their disputes among themselves, by re- 



286 

But instead of any thing like this, they speak as follows: 

After my departure, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, 
not sparing the flock. 

Also, of your own selves, shall men arise, speaking perverse things 
to draw away disciples after them. 

Therefore watch, and remember, that for the space of three years 

1 ceased not to warn every one, night and day, with tears. Acts 
XX. 28 to 32. 

For there must be heresies among you, that they which are ap- 
proved maybe made manifest among you. 1 Corinth, xi. 19. 

There shall be a falling away first, and then shall be revealed the 
man of sin and son of perdition, &c. 

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions (this word 
ought to be doctrines) which ye have been taught whether by word, 
or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 3 to 15. 

This know also, that in the last days, perilous times shall come. 

Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and 
being deceived. 

But continue in the things thou hast learned, &c., and that from 
a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make 
thee wise unto salvation, through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. 

2 Tim. iii. 1 to 17. 

"For the time will come, when they will not endure sound doc- 
trine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers 
having itching ears; 

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be 
turned unto fables." 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 

Knowing, that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, &;c., I 
will endeavor that ye may be able, after my decease, to have these 
things always in remembrance, &;c. 

But, as there were false prophets also among the people, (the Jews 
of old time,) even so shall there be false teachers among you, whoshall 
privily bring in damnable heresies, &;c. And many shall follow 
their pernicious ways, &c. 

ferring it to the particular congregations with whom they worshipped; for this 
is the meaning of the passage in Math, xviii. 17, 'Hell k to the church.'" See 
also 1 Corinth, vi. 1 to 5. T^his was the practice of the Jews at this time, in 
their synagogue associations. See Lightfoot on these passages. 

Now when we see this reference commended for the determination of mere 
temporal matters, and never the least mention made of a tribunal for determin- 
ing theological principles, it seems to me nothing can be clearer, than that 
neither Christ nor his apostles, ever contemplated the constitution of an eccle- 
siastical body, who under the name of the church were to decide upon subjects 
of either faith or practice. 



287 

Ye therefore beloved, seeing ye know these things beforehand, 
beware lest ye also being led away, with the error of the wicked, 
fall from your own steadfastness. 

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. 2 Peter i. 14, 15. ii. 1, 2. iii. 17, 18. 

In all these, and many similar annunciations of religious danger 
to the Christian world, there is not a single reference to the church, 
but it is made the duty of individuals to look to themselves, as in- 
structed either by the preaching or writings of the apostles. 

We shall exhibit this subject in another point of view, Christ for- 
mally directed his disciples thus: 

Be ye not called Rabbi, (i. e. Doctors of Divinity,) for one is your 
master, even Christ, and ye are all brethren. 

And call no man your father, (i. e. theologically,) upon the earth, 
for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew xxiii. 8, 9. 

Who, then, is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye 
believed, even as the Lord gave to every man. I have planted, 
Apollos watered, but God gave the increase: 

So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that 
watereth, but God that giveth the increase. 

Therefore let no man glory in men. 1 Corinth. 5, 6, 7, 21,&;c. 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy, and vain de- 
ceit, after the traditions of men, after rudiments of the world, and 
not after Christ. 

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in re- 
spect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath. 

Let 720 man, beguile you unto a voluntary humility, and worship- 
ping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, 
vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, &c. Coloss. ii. 8, 16, 18. &;c. 

The preceding passages, without regarding a great many others, 
of similar import, are sufficient to show, that not only the New 
Testament does not recognize any technical church, or corporation 
of ecclesiastics, but the whole tenor of the argument throughout is, 
that the apostles had proclaimed or written enough, to make men 
wise to salvation, and that it was every man's duty, as an intellec- 
tual being under trial, to exercise himself on the scheme and prin- 
ciples there revealed, as being those on which he wojld be hereafter 
responsible to his Maker. 

Now, as far as I can discern the scope of the Scriptures, and the 
theory of Christianity, it appears to me most clearly, that the doc- 
trine of a church to expound the Scriptures with any authority, 
strikes at the very root and foundation of Christianity itself. 



288 

Jehovah has created man to undergo intellectual and moral pro- 
bation before himself, and proportionably to such a scheme, he has com- 
missioned prophets and apostles, to make known just so much, and no 
more of his purposes and covenant, as will harmonize with his inscrut- 
able purposes. In accordance with this scheme of trial before himself, 
the Scriptures universally inculcate upon us, that all hearts, all 
thoughts, all actions, are continually before Jehovah, and that the 
day is coming, when we shall all be judged through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, concerning our individual faith and practice. 

But, if the individual, instead of deriving his faith and practice 
from the Scriptures, derives them from a church, then it is clear as 
daylight, that he no longer exercises his faith towards Jehovah as 
set forth in the Scripture, but his faith is exercised in an obedience 
to the church, not to Jehovah, but to the church alone. 

Seeing then that the Scripture no where recognizes a technical 
church, or corporation of ecclesiastics, as having authority to im- 
pose the particulars of Christian faith or practice upon the con- 
sciences of believers, and it being further evident that the very 
theory of such a body of ecclesiastics, would necessarily transfer 
the faith which we owe to Jehovah and his Christ, from them, 
to the decrees of a body of ecclesiastics, it certainly cannot require 
further argument from us to expose the absurdity of the doctrine of 
the church of Rome, and its entire contradiction to the whole scope 
and drift of the New Testament writings. 

It is useless, therefore, to go into any confutation of those argu- 
ments, which persons have advanced in justification of such a doc- 
trine as founded in the propriety that a church should be consti- 
tuted to act with infallibility, in order to preserve men from error, 
and to show them the way to truth.* It is needless, I say, to ex- 
amine the worth of such reasoning, after what has been just stated. 
Instead of wasting our time with such causidical arguments, we 
require the proof that Christ or his apostles have constituted such 
a Church, and if the proof from the Scriptures is not given, we will 
not take any interested or human argument on the subject. Now 
we have examined the Scripture, and we there not only find no 
such church, but we find every thing that implies a contrary sup- 
position. 

But in thus rejecting the doctrine of the church of Rome on this 

*As for a certain remedy against heresy, it is certain God never intended 
there should be any, no more 5ian he hath provided a certain remedy against 
sin and vice, which surely is every whit as contrary to the Christian reUgion, 
and therefore as fit to be provided against as heresy." — Tillotson, 62 Sermon. 



289 

subject in thus renouncing the theory of an infalHble church, what 
doctrine do we substitute in its place? What is the meaning of the 
term Church of Christ, recoo^nized in all our Protestant theolojTi- 
cal writings, and in which, and to which, our various Protestant 
sects refer themselves as being essentially component parts. 

Though all the Protestant sects deny the doctrine of an infallible 
Church, they all, I believe, consider that Christ or his apostles did 
establish a Church by the ordination of a ministry, who, under di- 
vine appointment, were expressly consecrated to those acts and 
services, that now constitute the clerical function as exercised 
among us in our various sectarian associations. There are few 
Protestant clergyman, therefore, who do not claim, under this sup- 
position, a divine commission, which can only be lawfully exercised 
by those who have been ordained to this function by the hands of 
those who have previously been ordained themselves. It is of es- 
sential importance that we understand this subject correctly. 

Now in the writings of the apostles, as there is no passage what- 
ever, directing the constitution of the visible Church, so neither is 
there any formal instruction given concerning the ordination of 

ministers for Christian confrre^ations. Such things are indeed al- 
ts o o 

luded to incidentally, but so exceedingly vague, that the same state- 
ments are quoted as authorities by those who have espoused the 
most conflicting theories on the subject. 

To my apprehension, the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn 
from this entire omission on the part of the evangelists and apostles, 
is, that they did not regard the ordination of clergymen as one of im- 
portance, for if they had, they surely would not have left us in igno- 
rance concerning the matter. The forms of the Jewish synagogue, 
in their day, was suflicient in their view to the spiritual edification 
of their followers, and that form they used. Thus complying sim- 
ply with already established usages, and with which their disciples 
were familiar.* 

* Lightfoot, a distinguished cleri2;yman of the church of England, and pro- 
foundly instructed in Hebrew antiquities, has made some ohservations on the 
theory of the Christian Church, which I think it may be useful to extract.— 
See his sermon on Christ's communion with the Jews. 

"That Christ,by himself and his apostles, platforming the model of churches 
under the gospel, did keep very close to the platform of synagogues, and 
synagogue -worship under the law. This iniglit be showed by showing par- 
allel practices in the apostolic churches to those that were in the syna- 
gogues. As a public minister, deacons, reading, preaching, praying, collec- 
tions for the poor, and love feasts, or entertainments of^ strangers at the public 
charge, but I shall fix particularly upon the 'public minister.' 

"All the titles that are given to ministers of the gospel, are the very same 
37 



290 

But though the apostles made use of the forms of the Jewish 
synagogue, they have not recommended that their disciples should 
adhere to its institutions, much less have they established such 
a form, as a matter of obligation upon their followers. They 
appear to me, to have left the Christian world at full liberty 
to follow any system, whether for discipline, or ordination of its 
ministers, that they might think best suited to edification. 

If the apostles of our Redeemer did actually consecrate the usages 
of the synagogue, or one nearly analogous to it, as the model for 
Christians in after times, they have, nevertheless, forborne to leave 
any written expression of their sentiment on the subject. I, there- 
fore, for one, will not take it for granted that they did so.* If any 
one contends that their example on this subject is obligatory, though 
I cannot suppose this either, yet I am perfectly willing to use the 
forms of the synagogue, which, I think, admirably well suited to re- 

that were given to the public minister in the synagogue. A gospel minister 
is called, angelus ecclesice; so was the minister of the synagogue called the 
'angel' or messenger of the congregation. The ministers of the gospel are 
called 'episcopi,' bishops, or overseers, so was the minister in every synagogue 
called 'the overseer of the congregation.' They are called 'rulers,' 'efders,' 
and 'those that are set over the people,' so were the ministers of the synagogue 
called in every title." — Lightfoot's Works, vi. 226. 

*That there was no church constitution either appointed or sanctioned by 
the apostles, thirty years after our Saviour's crucifixion, I should sup- 
pose must be evident from Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, where in ad- 
dressing them on sundry disorderly practices that prevailed among them, 
he never alludes to any rule or order of discipline sanctioned by the apos- 
tles, but simply aigues on the ground of such things being in themselves 
incorrect or improper. 

That there was no rule or system established by the apostles on the subject 
of ecclesiastical ordinations to the ministry, is, I think, abundantly evident 
from Paul's observations, concerning the impropriety of women preaching or 
praying publicly in the congregation. This subject is touched on in several 
of Paul's Epistles, 1 Corinth, xi. 5, 13; xiv. 34, 35. I would more especially 
direct the reader's attention to 1 Tim. ii. 4, which as it is more especially 
considered to treat of the ministers of the Christian Church, so it becomes 
important in the fact, that Paul's observation on the teaching of women, must 
satisfy any one that his observations on the teaching of men was a mere usage 
of expediency, without any sanction of the apostolic body. Maik his words: I 
suffer not, (allow not, or permit not, are equally legitimate,) a woman to teach, 
&.C. This observation shows that women at that time, did teach in the con- 
gregation, and that Paul disapproved of the practice. But certainly if there had 
been any church constitution or rule for ministerial ordinations established at 
that time, such a practice would not have prevailed in the Church, and Paul 
would not have said, I suffer not, and argue alone on the impropriety of the 
thing, but he would have said, our regulations suffer not, the apostles have 
forbidden, or do forbid a woman to preach. Sec. But never would behave 
said, 1 suffer not, if the improprietv' violated an established rule expressly 
sanctioned by the apostolic body. But indeed the mere fact, that the imj)ro- 
priety did exist, shoves that there was no rule on the subject of ecclesiastical 
ordination. And let not the reader forget that these Epistles of Paul were 
written between A. D. 60 and 69, or above thirty-five years after our 
Saviour's ascension to heaven. 



291 

ligious instruction, and that its adoption would be much more to 
edification than those forms which we now generally follow. 

But hitherto, we have been unable to discern how a divine com- 
mission for the present Christian ministry is to be sustained; the 
New Testament writers certainly do not formally recognize it as 
such, and if inferences be made on the subject, they seem legiti- 
mately to lead us to the Jewish synagogue, which as it never had 
a divine appointment under the Jewish church, so it has never been 
formally appointed for our observance under the dispensation of 
Jesus Christ. 

The commission given to the apostles, was to go and teach all 
men what they had learned from the Redeemer, and the apostles, in 
the exercise of their peculiar function, ordained, or appointed others 
to do the same duty. But as far as I can see, they only used the 
form of the Jewish synagogue in setting persons apart for such a 
service. They did not establish a corporation, who were vested 
with exclusive powers to ordain for the ministry, and if any one 
contends that they did, the onus probandi lays on him. 

Under no circumstances, therefore, do I perceive where a divine 
commission for the Christian ministry is to be derived, and neither 
can I see what there is to forbid any mere layman to exercise, with- 
out any ordination, all the functions of a Christian clergyman, 
when he may be so requested to act by a body of religious persons, 
or when his sense of duty may require him to call on men to repent 
of their evil lives, and seek the salvation of Jehovah. 

But, as the advocates for a primitive church, divinely constituted 
to ordain ecclesiastics to administer the sacraments, and to instruct, 
with more or less authority, mankind in the principles of the Chris- 
tian religion, cannot establish this doctrine from the New Testament, 
so they have been compelled to look elsewhere for arguments. What 
the apostles have not determined, the theologians of later times have 
sought for, in the writings of those persons who lived in the earlier 
ages of Christianity, and who are termed the Fathers of the Church. 

But with whatever reverence man may be disposed to regard the 
Fathers, I cannot conceive how they can be of any aw/Aori^y what- 
ever, to us on the subject. With res}>ect to the opinions of the Fa- 
thers upon doctrine, the Protestant churches all agree to consider 
them of no authority, and, therefore, I need say nothing upon that 
point. Why then should we concede them any weight in determin- 
ing questions concerning discipline, the constitution of church offi- 
cers, and such like matters? Shall I be told they are competent 
testimony as to matters of fact? T apprehend this may be granted 



292 

but I also contend the facts are not of the smallest importance, un- 
less as matters of mere curious antiquarian investigation. 

The Scripture prescribes no formal rule upon discipline, church 
constitution, nor church officers, and the inference is unavoidable, 
that the apostles thought such subjects of no importance, or that 
they were of that nature that their future disciples could, without 
any difficulty, settle them for themselves. The apostles adhered, in 
a general way, to the form and constitution of the Jewish synagogue? 
and so did the Fathers that immediately followed them. But if it be- 
came necessary to add to or diminish from those forms, it was done be- 
cause they were unrestricted by any rule on the subject, and they, there- 
fore, followed their own views of expediency which were very soon, 
indeed too often, suggested by the influences of pride and ambition. 
Shall, then, the use of a church constitution or discipline that pre- 
vailed in those ancient times, and ii^hich was then but a matter of 
expediency, so far as we can perceive, become, in the mere circum- 
stance that such a form was used by them, a rule obligatory upon 
us at the present day? I can but express wonder at the notions men 
entertain upon this subject. 

Those who assert that Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, or any other 
form of church constitution, is of divine appointment, upon them 
lays the onus probandi. But the example of the primitive Chris- 
tians, on the subject, cannot be admitted as evidence until they satisfy 
us that the example of the primitive Christians is obligatory upon 
us. Otherwise the liberty of expediency which we conceive they 
exercised upon this subject, and which, we contend, is also our privi- 
lege at the present time, is debarred us without reason or justice. 
Since the New Testament writers leave us free to follow what form 
we please, by what inference of common sense are we bound to fol- 
low the mere expedient, or even unjustifiable usages of the primi- 
tive Christians, and thus sacrifice our privileges to a senseless con- 
formity with their example or custom. 

So, far, therefore, from conceding any thing to the authority or to 
the example of the Fathers on this point, but which, in truth, is so very 
indecisive, that the controversy concerning the forms of the primitive 
church is no nearer its conclusion at present than it has ever been; I say 
so far from regarding any thing that the earlier Fathers have written 
on this subject, I do not hesitate to assert, that if the original rec- 
ords of the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, or Corinth, should be 
now recovered from the wreck of past time, which would determine 
the fact beyond all controversy, that this form, or that form of eccle- 
siastical constitution or discipline was followed originally, I would 



293 

exercise a dispassionate judgment on its merits, whether it was bet- 
ter suited to edification than the one I now follow, and if I thought 
it not so good, I would dismiss the record as deliberately as I would 
the constitution of any modern Church. As long as the Scripture 
is silent upon the subject, no man can be bound by the institutions or 
example of other men, but as they may be to edification, and upon 
this subject let every one judge for himself. 

Is it not a most preposterous notion that proposes we should concede 
to the first two or three centuries of Christianity any authority on relig- 
ious matters? They were ages, comparatively, of great ignorance, 
where Jewish prejudices were mingled with heathen philosophy, and 
each striving to be dominant. They were ages that were characterized 
by the commencement and procession of that mystery of ecclesias- 
tical iniquity, that in a few centuries later attained its consumma- 
tion in the mighty hierarchy of the Church of Rome. 

I shall not produce evidences of the spiritual ignorance of the 
second or third centuries, it will answer a better purpose to show 
what was the condition of things during the life-time of the apos- 
tles themselves. Any reasonable man can estimate that if such 
things, as are quoted below, occurred under the immediate cogni- 
zance of the apostles, how much they must have increased after their 
decease.* 

* Of the errors and heresiea existing actually in the days of the Apostles. 

Now I beseech you mark them which cause divisions contrary to the doc- 
trine. Rom. xvi. 17, 18. 

Now I beseech you brethren that there be no divisions among you, The house 
of Chloe, &c. 1 Cor. i. 10, 11. 

For ye are yet carnal, there is envying, and strife, and divisions. 1 Cor. iii. 3, 4. 

I hear there be divisions among you, and there must be heresies, &c. 1 Cor. 
xi. 18, 19. 

How say some among you there is no resurrection? 1 Cor. xv. 12. 

We are not as many which corrupt the word of God, he. 2 Cor. ii. 17. 

St. Paul speaks of his contending with false apostles, &-c. 2 Cor. xi. 12, 13. 

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into anotlier 
gospel. Gal. i. 6, 7. 

Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife. Philip, i. 15. 

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. 2 Thess. ii. 7. 

From which some have turned aside, &c. desiring to be teachers, &c. 1 Tim. 
i. 5, 6, 7. 

Holding faith of which some have made shipwreck. 1 Tim. i. 19. 

Timothy avoid profane babblings, which, some professing, have erred. I 
Tim.vi. 20, 21. 

This thou knowest, that all they in Asia have turned away from me. 2 Tim. 
i. 15. 

Shun profane and vain babblings, Hymeneus and Philetus, who say the res- 
urrection is passed. 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17, IS. 

Demas hath forsaken me, &c. 2 Tim. iv. 10. 

There are many unruly and vain talkers whose mouths must be stopped. Ti- 
tus i. 10, 11, 14. 

Even now, there are many anti-chrisis, &c. 1 John ii. IS, 19. 



294 

Shall we, then, permit any thing, whether of doctrine or practice, to 
stand on the authority of the men of these times, or still later than these, 
when their intellectual perceptions were so dull, that the clergy who, 
at one time forced the sacraments down the throats of sucking chil- 
dren; at another, made a secret mystery of the Lord's supper, which 
was instituted to show forth his death to the world? 

Shall we allow that reasoning to be valid, which, laying hold of 
certain statements of doubtful or of indifferent particulars made in 
the New Testament, then undertakes to elucidate them by practices 
which prevailed three or four hundred years afterwards, and which, 
though merely expedient in their commencement, had been continual- 
ly vitiated by the ambition of a growing ecclesiastical body, who, as 
the years elapsed from the time of the meek and humble Jesus of 
Nazareth, progressed in corruption until his self-styled vicar not only 
arrogated dominion over emperors and kings, but by his simple in- 
terdict would, at times, put a stop even to the religious worship of 
Jehovah himself? 

If the mystery of iniquity worked among the Christians during the 
very times of the apostles, how much greater was its influence after 
they were removed from the earth? Judging by the universal testi- 
mony of history in every age, we are fully justified to believe that 
this mystery of iniquity worked especially through those particulars 
that concerned the dignity, the power, and the revenues of the ec- 
clesiastical officers. The history of the Church in the first four or 
five centuries, shows us little else than a progressive increase of the 
power of the ecclesiastics. We there learn that what had been 
originally given them through benevolence, was at least extorted by 
force, what had been conceded them through respectful courtesy, was, 
iiQ after times, accounted sacrilege if withheld; what had been origi- 
nally sought from them as men better instructed than others, was 
ultimately communicated to the laity as the enactments of Christ 
himself, and everlasting damnation denounced against all those who 
did not implicitly regard their decrees.* 

Believe not every spirit, but try the spirit, for many false prophets are gone 
out, &c. 1 John iv. 1, 3. 

Many deceivers are entered into the world. 2 John vii. 

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes receiveth us not. 3 John 9, 10. 

It was needful to exhort you to contend for the faith, certain men have crept 
in unawares. Jude 3, 4, 10 "to 14, 17, 18. 

Church of Ephesus Rev. ii. 2, 5; Pergamus ii, 14; Thyatira ii. 20; Sardis 
iii. 1, 2, 3; Laodicea iii. 16, 17. 

* Though Jehovah enacted no penalty, nor announced any judgment against 
those who did not pay their tithes to the Jewish priesthood, whom he had con- 
secrated, the Christian ecclesiastics anathematised those w^ho did not pay them 
who were not of divine institution, and who never had the smallest right to 



295 

We will not, then, submit the smallest matter to the authority of the 
Fathers nor to the traditions of the Church. The Scriptures, and them 
alone, do we regard as our authorities, and they being silent concern- 
ing the constitution of any primitive church, technically so called, I do 
not believe that there was any such ecclesiastical corporation, whether 
in the Papal, Episcopal, or Presbyterian hypothesis. The whole 
body of professing Christians constituted the Christian Church, as 
the whole body of Jews had constituted the Jewish church. As to 
the regulation of religious congregational exercises, men were free 
to follow what form they pleased, and 1 apprehend there can be no 
doubt that the first Christian congregations were little, if any thing, 
different from Jewish synagogues in all their usages. 

That Christ commissioned his apostles and disciples to proclaim 
the gospel, and that he gave them a divine commission, is undeni- 
able. But he appointed them no successors, neither have they done 
so for themselves, as far as the New Testament informs us. That 
they ordained, presumably upon the theory of the Jewish synagogue, 
other persons to preach the gospel in its brief simplicity, is un- 
doubted, and as long as Christianity was uncorrupted, men were 
thus continually set apart for this purpose with prayer and imposi- 
tion of hands, as practiced in the Jewish synagogue. That there 
was any corporate ecclesiastical authority vested in them by these 
acts, is the theory of those who corrupted Christianity and per- 
verted its simple institutions. 

That the ministers of the Christian religion have a warranty for 
their profession as teachers, is undeniable. That their function is 
the most honorable that can be exercised by man, and that it is their 
duty to communicate knowledge and instruction of those particulars 
that concern the salvation of mankind, is also undeniable. But I 
contest the fact that they have any corporate existence by divine 
appointment, and I deny that they have any authority, as ecclesi- 
astics, to expound Scripture. As teachers, they have no other au- 
thority than what is to be conceded to their individual capacities, 
their learning, their prudence, their good sense; just the same as 
we concede authority to a professor of law, history, or philosophy.* 

tithes. Nevertheless "it was decreed, at the Consilium Romanum, A. D. 375, 
that tithes and first fruits should be given by the faithful, and that they who 
refuse be stricken with the curse, {anathcmatefcnaritur.") 

*To prevent any misconstruction of this observation, I beo; leave to remark, 
that in saying a clergyman is entitled to no more authority than a professor of 
law or medicine, I do not in the smallest degree doubt that a faithful pious 
clergyman is enlightened and assisted by the Spirit of Jehovah, in the discharge 
of his ministerial duties, whereby he becomes more and more beneficial to his 
fellow-creatures continually. But, though the pious and zealous clergyman 



296 

Nor do 1 think any thing can be clearer than this, for who is to 
determine the value of the conflicting opinions of the ecclesiastics of 
the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian Churches. 
Certainly there is no other arbiter than the Scriptures: for to this 
arbiter all refer. The text then of Scripture, as it is to be honestly 
construed, is alone our guide, for no one will concede this judgment 
to any Church but their own. The first step then is to ascertain the 
true and correct text of the Scripture. How is this to be ascer- 
tained? Why, by human means alone, by collation of manuscripts, 
examination of versions, and ancient controversies, by philology and 
criticism. 

Now upon this subject, what has any Church or body of ecclesi- 
astics ever done? I believe I can say, without the least hazard, 
that they have never done one single thing. All the immense im- 
provement on this subject, that has taken place within the past cen- 
tury, has been accomplished by individuals, lay, and clerical, who, 
instead of being honored in their work, by the great body of eccle- 
siastics, have been mistrusted and censured for their labors. 

I defy the whole body of Christian ecclesiastics. Catholic and 
Protestant, together, to tell us, whether the differing readings of the 
Samaritan, the Hebrew, or the Septuagint, is the true reading. I 
challenge them to tell us, whether any disputed text is true Scrip- 
ture or not, otherwise than as based upon the labors of individual 
commentators and critics, who claim no inspiration for their labors. 
Shall we, then, allow ecclesiastics, upon such a foundation as this, to 
step in, and tell us they have a commission to expound the sense of 
Scripture to us, when they cannot tell, whether it is Scripture or not? 
Surely, of all the absurdities of human nature, nothing can be greater 
than to concede the clergy any other authority than what belongs to 
them indimdually, as learned, judicious, and capable men. They, 
just in proportion to their natural talents, and the amount of their 
literary and spiritual application, become qualified like professors of 

be thus assisted by the Spirit of God — he can never become of authority to us 
further than as he is able, like the professor of law or medicine, to convince 
our understanding by the weight of the argument or evidence that he produces . 
And the reason of this is evident, for the spiritual influences of Jehovah are 
not restricted or limited to the clergy, but they are bestowed upon all men, with- 
out distinction, who sincerely seek after the salvation of Jehovah. The influ- 
ences of the Spirit of God are as certainly communicated to those seeking after 
the truth, as they are to those pious clergymen who endeavor to instruct others 
in the truth. But it is impossible for human nature to ascertain the amount of 
spiritual illumination imparted to men, whether as laymen or clergymen, and, 
therefore, it is impossible that one man can be of authority to another man on 
religious subjects. We must decide for ourselves, according to the evidence 
before us, and in this circumstance our probation as individuals consists. But 
I shall discourse presently at large on this subject. 



297 

any other subject of knowledge to communicate instruction to those 
who have neither abihty nor opportunity, to investigate truth for 
themselves, without the assistance of competent teachers. 

But, though it is every man's duty to think and act for himself in 
religious matters, it is not every man's business to set up as a teacher 
for others. With whatever willingness men may devote them- 
selves to religious services, even the most honest and disinterested are 
very apt to over-estimate their capacities, and to undertake the per- 
formance of duties, for which they are not so well qualified, as they 
are for a lower station in the Christian Church. 

As we have more than once observed that a clergyman has no 
more authority for his instructions, than a professor of law or medi- 
cine, so neither ought he to have less authority. As no one can 
rationally pretend to instruct others in law or medicine, without 
having been properly instructed himself on those subjects, so neither 
can any one, with the least rationality, undertake to instruct others 
on religious subjects, without he has been properly educated him- 
self. He ought to possess that amount of piety, learning, and good 
sense, by w^hich he can improve every opportunity to do good, and 
appreciate every subject of knowledge or science, which the restless 
mind of man is continually bringing to bear on the moral obligations 
of human nature. 

Therefore, notwithstanding my aversion to the doctrine of a di- 
vinely constituted church, and of divinely constituted ministers, yet 
no one must imagine from my preceding discourse, that I entertain 
any hostility to the ecclesiastical function. It is expedient that a 
body of pious and capable men, shall be set apart to preach the 
gospel, to instruct the ignorant, and to awaken men from the en- 
trancement of their worldly occupations, to a sense of their respon- 
sibilities before Jehovah. To accomplish this all important ob- 
ject, the ministers of religion ought not to be embarrassed by any 
secular employment, but should be supported by their congrega- 
tions in a liberal competence.* To enable clergymen to act effi- 
ciently, they should be qualified as far as possible by all the advan- 
tages of a liberal education, and having been thus properly edu- 

* The compensation and support of the Christian ministry must be left to 
the people. The State should not be permitted to bestow the least benevo- 
lence or revenue upon the clergy. The people will raaintaiu their religious 
instructors in coralort, and they will honor them, if thev bo faithful in the 
discharge of their important functions. The Church united to the State, no 
doubt strengthens the State, but the Church itself is defiled by the association. 
The spirit of piety is then quenched in observances of political dictation or 
patronage, and the Church will sink at last into a mere department of the 
State, co-ordinate with the army and the navy. 

38 



298 
cated, they should be licensed as teachers, by the approving judg- 
ment of wise and pious men, who have a practical knowledge con- 
cerning things so essential to the everlasting welfare of mankind. 
That this body of examiners should be clergymen, I apprehend is 
the plain dictate of common sense. Provided they claim no right 
jure divino in licensing men for the ministerial office, other matters 
stand well enough as they are at present. The good sense of man- 
kind will lead them readily to adopt every improvement which suc- 
ceeding times may be able to extend to this important subject. 

The appointment, therefore, of a body of pious men as teachers 
and instructors to mankind, is thus distinctly recognized. But a 
question of infinite moment is implicated in the exercise of the 
function of these teachers. For what is it they are to teach? Is it 
that their expositions or doctrines shall be received by men as of 
authority? Certainly not; for such a theory of their office, would 
undeniably transfer the faith of mankind from Jehovah and his 
Christ, addressing us in the Scriptures, to the authority of the 
teacher, which is absurd, as it destroys the whole gospel system. 
It follows, therefore, that the teacher or instructor is to exercise 
himself in the most conscientious manner, in the instruction of 
men in every principle of truth, implicated in the direct revelations 
of God; on which subjects, it is impossible to lay down any rule or 
limitation as to the amount of knowledge the teacher is to commu- 
nicate. But it is obligatory on him, to make his expositions 
simply on his own perceptions, and on his own responsibilities. He 
has no right to claim authority for them. It is his business to in- 
struct and teach, it is the business of those who listen, to satisfy 
themselves as to the truth of what the instructor communicates. 
If he has stated vrhat they perceive to be true, they are bound to 
adopt that truth, if he teaches any doctrine which the people cannot 
discern to be scriptural, they are not bound to adopt it. 

It is utterly impossible to regard the ministers of the gospel in 
any other light than as above stated, for if we allow the very small- 
est authority to them, we are dependant upon the frailty of their hu- 
man nature, which, however honest they may be, will unavoidably 
lead us into error. If we allow a single degree of authority to cleri- 
cal teaching, where are we to stop? There can be no limitation 
assigned, and the doctrine must inevitably terminate in the establish- 
ment of an ecclesiastical corps, claiming infallibility to their decis- 
ions. Such a consummation as this, at last opens our eyes, and we 
distinctly perceive, that if the Church is to be regarded infallible 
in her expositions of doctrine, that then we no longer exercise 



299 

individnal faith towards Jehovah, as he has revealed himself to our 
understanding, but \ve exercise our faith only to the infallible 
Church. The evident contradiction of such a system to the prin- 
ciples of the gospel, will be manifest at last, by the Scriptures being 
forbidden to the people at large, for if they are read, the authority 
of the Church will be despised. 

It must be perceived from my preceding discourse, that in making 
an argument against the existence of any primitive Church, or of 
church officers authorized to declare what are the doctrines of the 
Scripture, I do not urge that argument only against the extrava- 
gant pretensions of the Romish Church. My position is equally 
taken against the Protestant Churches, who, though they all deny 
the existence of an infallible Church, or body of ecclesiastics, to de- 
termine on doctrinal points de jure, yet, nevertheless, concede to 
their respective clergy, a greater or less degree of authority, on the 
apparently plausible ground, that, as being devoted to the study of 
the Scriptures, their judgment on religious doctrines ought to have 
superior weight over the speculations of mere laymen, in determin- 
ing controverted points. 

And that the Protestant clergy do have authority among their 
congregations, in virtue of this supposition, is undeniable, for no 
observation is more common among the less instructed Protestants, 
than this, "that if their clergy do not have correct views on relig- 
ious doctrines, who else can have that knowledge.'' 

Now I shall not dispute the fact, that the clergy are just as like- 
ly to be correct in their views as any laymen may be, but at the 
same time they are just as likely to be wrong. This is not the 
point of importance, I contend that no man, lay or clerical, no 
corporation or individual, should be regarded as of authority in mat- 
ters of religion. 

The office of a clergyman is to point out truth, and exhort men 
to obey the requirements of the gospel, but he has no authority to 
determine what are the doctrines of the gospel, otherwise than as 
he has the Scripture clearly for his warranty, and if any man con- 
cedes authority to the annunciations of his pastor, without discern- 
ing their value for himself, in the expositions of the Scriptures, he 
is guilty of an offence before God, for our faith is not to be exercised 
towards the Church, or any man, or body of men, but to Jehovah 
himself through Jesus Christ. 

But, suppose a man meets with some of those hard and difficult 
passages of the Scripture that are susceptible of different explana- 
tions, and which we may, without any want of charity, readily be- 



300 
lieve, some persons "have wrested to their own destruction." Does 
not this fact imply a necessity for a clergyman to direct the con- 
science of the honest, though bewildered individual? Not the least, 
for it is upon our proceeding with such subjects, that our trial before 
Jehovah in part depends. He that undertakes to determine posi- 
tively, on many points involved in the theory of Christianity, is 
guilty of presumption, and those that adopt any doctrines, whatever, 
upon the authority of a Church, or learned man, cease to exercise 
faith towards Jehovah, and alone exercise it towards the Church, 
or the individual, whose exposition they recognize as being of au- 
thority. 

Again, it may be asked, how can a man ignorant of Hebrew, 
Greek, oriental customs, ancient history, &c. understand difficult 
passages of the Scripture, and how is he to guard against error? If 
a man be uninstructed on these subjects, he has but one or two talents 
to account for, those that are instructed in them, have five talents 
committed to them, for which they are responsible; and, it is absurd 
to expect that a man with small advantages, can profit as much from 
the study of the Scriptures, as him that has superior advantages. 
Let the uneducated man read the Scriptures in our translation, 
compare them with other English translations, and take advantage 
of every opportunity to comprehend them better, let him pray to 
Jehovah, before whom he is undergoing trial, to enlighten him with 
his Holy Spirit. Has not Jehovah promised to answer such prayer, 
and is not his Spirit sufficient ? 

It miist never be forgotten that belief in the doctrines of Christian- 
ity, is an exercise before Jehovah, and implies an intellectual confi- 
dent belief, not a passive or negative belief, which amounts to 
nothing more than that the individual does not disbelieve. There- 
fore, if a man under any circumstance of intellectual advantage 
or disadvantage, has any doctrine preached to him, which he can- 
not discern to be sustained by clear Sc.ripture authority, he should 
refuse to profess any belief in it. It is a sealed matter to him, 
whether it be true or false. He is not required to give an assent 
to it, though every Christian church may receive the doctrine as 
true, and of sufficient Scripture warrant. It may then be asked, 
ought not a man to yield to the authority of so many persons, 
more learned, more intellectual, and more pious than himself? 
By no means. It would be highly improper for him to treat the 
doctrinal views of others with disrespect, because, what so many 
persons profess to believe, may very possibly be true, and he may, 
most probably, be in error. Yet, how can he say, that, because so 



301 

many pious and learned persons believe this doctrine, that it must 
be true, and that, therefore, he will profess a belief in it? Is a belief 
of this kind an act of faith to Jehovah? Certainly it is not so in the 
least degree. It is neither more nor less than a conformity with the 
majority of men, out of distrust of one's own capacity or knowledge, 
or it is a matter of submission to the Doctors of the Church, but 
there is no particle of faith to Jehovah in it, as far as I can discern, 
any more than was the case of the submission of the Jews to the au- 
thority of their rabbis, and which brought the judgments of Jehovah 
on the nation. 

The great defect of our Protestant sects, at the present day, con- 
sists in the reverence with which they regard those antiquated 
teachings of men, set forth in articles, creeds, or confessions of faith, 
by which the light and knowledge of every improving age is prevent- 
ed from entering those ecclesiastical bounds, enclosed by our fathers 
some hundreds of years ago. 

That it is absurd for us to attach any authority to opinions of 
men who lived in times which may be termed dark, as compared to 
the light we now enjoy, it is only necessary to estimate the constitu- 
tion of those ecclesiastical assembUes, who first framed such expo- 
sitions of Christian doctrine. This subject we can easily deter- 
mine, by looking at those'assemblies of clergymen, who, in our day, 
regulate the affairs of the various Protestant associations. 

Though there are undoubtedly men of the highest order of intel- 
lect, of learning, and piety, that have devoted themselves to preach- 
ing the gospel, yet, most indubitably, the great majority of the clergy 
are men of moderate, and even ordinary intellect, small literary 
attainments, and not a whit more pious than a considerable portion 
of their lay members. This we by no means impute to them as any 
fault, or matter to be remedied, a good man can only be a good 
man, and a clergyman, in being a good man, cannot be required to 
be more pious than any other pious person. 

When a synod or convocation of any of our Christian clergy of 
the present day meet, they stand collectively, as they did individ- 
ually, a body by no means eminent for their intellectual capacities, 
or for the profundity of their learning, however sincerely pious and 
honest they may be. And, as the cJergy of the present day, so were 
they in former times, except they now are less arrogant and dogmatic. 

Now, shall any such body of men authoritatively determine what 
is the true doctrine of Scripture, or true signification of Scripture 
passages for others? Why, the very enunciation of such a mat- 
ter is ridiculous. Father Simon, Houbigant, Kennicott, Wetstein, 



302 

Michaelis, and other biblical critics, have done more towards com- 
municating true Scripture doctrine to us, than all the councils, 
synods, and convocations, from that of Nice, down to the one held 
this very day, have done, put the whole value of their labors, Cath- 
olic and Protestant, altogether. For as all our knowledge of divine 
things is derivable from the Scripture alone, so the more distinctly 
that we discern the meaning and reasoning of the Scripture, so the 
more correct are the views we have of our obligations, whether to- 
wards God or man. And, if any passage of Scripture be obscure, if 
it cannot be solved by pious and learned philologists, there are no 
officers in the Christian church that can determine its true meaning, 
either by appointment of Jehovah, or in virtue of their ministerial 
office. Such passages must remain obscure, and we have no con- 
cern with them. 

But what actually occurs at all stated assemblies of the clergy? 
The majority who decide on the controverted questions are unde- 
niably men of ordinary capacities, and very moderate learning, and 
thus the judgments of the things of our religious faith, are absolute- 
ly determined by the votes of inferior men in every respect, who, 
however, seldom hesitate in undertaking to judge the merits of any 
subject, that may come before them.* And this is human nature; 
all men do the same, for until a man is instructed on any subject, he 

* Without quoting the sentiments of Gregory Nazianzen, and others of form- 
er times, concerning the ancient councils, I shall make an exhibition of the 
manner in which a very celebrated Protestant assembly managed their affairs, by 
which the reader may see how narrowly matters of churcn discipline often 
escape being decided contrary to their present usages. 

On the discussion of certain points of the discipline of the Presbyterian 
Church, in the Westminster assembly of divines, Lightfoot records, in his 
Journal, (May 16,) "Our debate grew long and hot, and there was much 'pro et 
contra,' upon it, and at last we had it very near the question, when Mr, Carter 
and others interposed. At last, with extreme tugging, w^e got it to the ques- 
tion, and was carried so narrowly, that it was thrice put before it could be de- 
termined; and there ai-ose a great heat, and at last it was earned affirmatively 
by four voices. 

"Then fell we upon the second reason, "We find that a classical presbytery 
did ordain," &-c. And this,the dissenting party urged to go to the question, think- 
ing this reason not to make a clear conclusion upon the proposition, 'a classical 
presbytery did ordain,' ergo, a single congregation may not. This scoff cost 
some heat and long debate, and the thing itself spent abundance of time, at 
last it was put to the question and voted affirmatively; some Jive votes difference.'' 

"But on the 7th August the votes were closer than in the preceding instances, 
for on the subject of baptism, "so many were unwilling to have dipping ex- 
cluded, that the vote came to an equality within one; for the one side was twen- 
ty-four, the other twenty-five; and there grew a great heat upon it, and when 
we had done all, we concluded upon notliing in it, but the business was re- 
committed." 

From the above extract, which is a fair sample of the proceedings of all re- 
ligious assemblies on contested points, we may learn how credulous men are 
that can concede to the deliberations of ecclesiastics, any spiritual authority. 
To me nothing seems more justifiable than that bitter sarcasm of Luther's, 
Religio nunquam magis pe7'iclitatur, qiiam inter reverendissimos. 



303 

is unconscious of the amount of his ignorance, and, therefore, de- 
termines upon slight and unexamined grounds, that are often very 
far from being correct, though they may have the semblance of truth 
and sanctity. 

I must not, however, conclude this part of my subject, without 
stating that there is an amount of good sense and true piety in the 
great body of Protestant clergymen, which has greatly operated, of 
late years, towards throwing down those ecclesiastical partitions 
which formerly divided the great body of Protestants into unchari- 
table sects. The observation of every day must satisfy us that the 
clergy are sensibly becoming more indifferent to many of their pe- 
culiar sectarian doctrines, which, a century ago, were regarded 
scarcely less than essential, and which, not to insist upon, would 
have then subjected any individual to the opprobium of being schis- 
matic, and unfit for their particular communion. Nevertheless, as 
long as many mere inferential, not to say unwarrantable doctrines, 
are insisted on, in the ordination of a clergyman, as matters to which 
he must profess a conscientious assent, so long they preserve an au- 
thority among the body, whether clerical or lay, that is injurious to 
the simplicity of the Christian faith, and which too often are stum- 
bling blocks in the way of those who are honestly seeking the salva- 
tion of Jesus Christ, under the light and knowledge of the present 
age. 



CHAPTER XV. 

ox THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY TO AU- 
THORITY AND POWER OVER THE CONSCIENCES OF THE LAITY. 

When we look back to the Scriptures for the foundations upon 
which the ecclesiastical institutions of Christendom have been erect- 
ed, when we have seen how slight an authority can be deduced from 
those writings to justify even the very loosest form of church as- 
semblies, or of church officers, we cannot but marvel how it could 
be possible, from such insufficient and mere inferential passages of 
Scripture, to have ultimately produced that wonderful power of the 
Christian ecclesiastics, which has exerted such an astonishing influ- 
ence upon the world, both in past and present time. 

Though it cannot be expected, from the nature of our work, that 
we should go into any elaborate investigation of those causes that 
elevated the simple teachers of Christianity, into a divinely consti- 
tuted corporation of ecclesiastics, yet the subject is of too much im- 
portance to be passed over altogether. Not only will some expla- 
nation be satisfactory to those who have never inquired into this 
matter, but it is of great importance in the fact, that the very same 
causes that exalted the Christian teachers originally, exerts, at this 
very time, an injurious influence upon the simplicity of that faith 
which the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ communicated to 
mankind alone as the essential principles of our salvation. 

The fundamental doctrines of Christianity were very plainly exhib- 
ited in the New Testament writings, but the presumptuous curiosity 
of man has never been restrained to the ascertaining whether God 
had indeed established such a constitution of things. Like Nico- 
demus, as soon as they hear them announced, they exclaim, "how 
can such things be?" and the next step of their restless curiosity, is 
to reduce them into a system, whose rationale, modus operandi, and 
ultimate purpose, shall make their submission to the word of God 
accordant with principles of human wisdom or philosophy. This 
principle was the chief foundation for ecclesiastical domination, 
though other causes have also exerted a great influence. 

But in order to understand this subject with distinctness, we must 



305 

advert to the intellectual condition of human society, when the ear- 
lier preachers of the gospel continually augmented th(3 society of 
Christian believers, by conversions from Jews and Gentiles. 

The Jewish religion at these times was grossly corrupt, not only 
in the doctrines taught by their different sects, but they also were 
considerably infected with the absurd and superstitious notions of 
the Syrians, Egyptians, and other adjacent people, concerning invisi- 
ble powers, whether of good or evil intelligences, the study of mag- 
ic, and various other particulars of heathen superstition and philoso- 
phy- 

The Gentiles were all more or less influenced by the doctrines of 
their mythological schemes, and those boundless Systems of philosoph- 
ical extravagances, that speculated upon the nature of God, the prin- 
ciples of good and evil, the existence of the material universe, the hu- 
man soul, and the end and object of all these abstruse subjects, as con- 
summated in their future and eternal existence. 

When persons holding these notions, whether Jews or heathens, 
were converted to the Christian faith, it was utterly impossible that 
they could divest themselves of all those trains of thought and sub- 
jects of speculation, that had previously exerted an influence over 
them; nay, they were continually engaged with unbelievers in dis- 
cussing such matters, whether as confuting them, or as vindicating 
the doctrines of the Christian faith, which necessarily opposed the 
mythology, or the philosophy of all the nations around. 

In a very little time, the notions and opinions of the Christians 
began to have a reflex operation on the doctrines of Christianity it- 
self, and even in the days of the apostles, we find frequent allusions 
to false doctrines and heresies among the general body of Christians, 
which we have sufficient light to discern originated in the prejudices 
of those, who, though they had embraced Christianity, yet mingled 
in their profession no small leaven of Judaism, and of Gentile phi- 
losophy. This state of things lasted, generally speaking, during 
three or four centuries. 

It will be thus perceived, that in the primitive ages of Christiani- 
ty there was a body of people to be instructed in the doctrines of a 
religious faith that was involved with numerous controversies, sug- 
gested on all sides under the influences of Judaism and heathcMiism. 
In such a condition of things, nothing seems more reasonable than 
that persons set apart to instruct the people, and who were more or 
less qualified so to act, should acquire, in the first instance, deference 
and respect from their office,* and on the more abstruse or difficult 

* It also was natural that those person? who fiad l)cen appointed instructors 
39 



.306 

subjects, that the opinions of the teachers should have authority 
with those who are impatient of difficulties which they either will 
not or cannot take the trouble to understand by study and persever- 
ing application. 

Thus the authority of the Christian teachers, was primarily the 
work of the people themselves, and, in the first instance, it is most 
credible to suppose, was rather conferred on the teachers, than sought 
or claimed by them. But, in process of time, when controversies 
became more subtle and more frequent in the Christian body as they 
did under the influence of the Doceta3 or Gnostics, then the jealousies 
of the teachers became excited, under the greater opposition they 
encountered with contentious and subtle disputants, and then they 
and their partizans began to magnify their office, as teachers who 
had been appointed by apostles, and whom the Scriptures recognised 
as officers in the church. Here was a divine warranty, at least, and 
many might have contended that they were of divine commission. 

Still the subject was too novel to countenance any formal submis- 
sion of the laity to their teachers, but the impulse to such a doctrine 
had been given, and in the perpetual disputes and controversies of 
these times, the system grew continually,and without any one seem- 
ing to perceive its growth, from the simplicity of the causes pro- 
ducing it, which I will endeavor to exhibit briefly to the reader. 

Of the Christian controversies of the first three centuries, the 
greater part were upon subjects incomprehensible to the human mind 
and for which the Scriptures contained no rule of determination. 
Though this ought to have put a stop to such controversies, the 
pride and impertinent curiosity of man was not to be checked, and 
since the Scriptures did not decide for them, the only resource was 
to call in other persons of similar views to sustain each other in 
their peculiar notions by the coalition of their respective favorers 
and partizans. In the first instance, the associations of persons 
holding different opinions, grooped them together in very ill defin- 
ed systems, and which, though it disturbed, did not break the com- 
mon bond of charity by which all who professed faith in Jesus Christ 

or teachers by the apostles themselves, or, in a less deofree, by those who had 
known and communicated with the apostles, should, in those circumstances, be 
regarded as of greater authority than other men. They, indeed, had within 
themselves a source of authority, for they could say, we have heard Paul or 
Peter express themselves on such and such subjects, or we have heard tliose 
who were familiar with the immediate disciples of Paul and Peter express 
themselves so and so. And however unjustifiable such references were, and 
however contrary to the writing of Paul himself, 1 Cor. i. 10 to 17. iii. 3 to 11, 
yet it is not always easy to disregard such authorities, when those quoting 
them were honest and of good life and reputation. The doctrine of tradition 
in the Church of Rome, originated in this principle. 



307 

were regarded as brethren, but the inevitable result was, that as soon 
as the comparative strength of the dilTerent parties was ascertained, 
that side which numbered the strongest, determined that their opin- 
ions were alone orthodox. Resistance and opposition, from the mi- 
nority, then occasioned their exclusion from the communion of the 
majority. Sometimes they may have withdrawn of themselves, but 
amidst further disputes, and angry contentions, the majority assum- 
ed themselves to be the "Unity of the Church," not only as justify- 
ing their own orthodox proceedings, but equally gratifying as thus 
representing their adversaries, enemies to the common faith, and 
which obhged these last to vindicate themselves from charges whose 
peculiar force lay in the circumstance that the majority sustained 
such an imputation. 

The more frequent and bitter that the controversies were, the 
closer became the union of a majority who claimed to be the 
Church in its unity, and whenever the dreadful term of heretic, or 
schismatic, had been once applied to those who differed from the 
majority, the foundations of ecclesiastical rule were established. 
The teachers of the majority, must now necessarily regulate the 
faith and practice of the people, and in the votes of a majority^ who- 
ever dissented or disapproved their proceedings, was excluded from 
their uxity, as a schismatic, or heretic. Thus it became impos- 
sible to ever get rid of the theory of the u^'ity of the church, for 
the majority always constituted the unity and the orthodoxy, and 
which words, as being the foundation and strength of their partv, 
so they were oftenest in their mouths, and the most zealously in- 
sisted upon. Every determination thus made by the unity and or- 
thodoxy of the church, constituted a precedent for future proceed- 
ings, and future regulations, until at last the whole Christian bo- 
dy", ecclesiastics, as well as laymen, were fast bound by an ar- 
tificial system of their own creating, which, like all other corpo- 
rations, soon showed that it had no feeling for those who op- 
posed its claims.* 

* A circumstance that tended s^reatly to the consolidation of the ecclesiasti- 
cal power, arose from the misapplication of certain passages of the Scripture, 
(Math, xviii. 17; 1 Corinth, vi. 1 to 6,) which censure the practice of s;o\ns; 
to law before the heathen tribunals, and recommends that disputes between 
Christians should be settled by themselves in their particular congre^ijations. 
This was indeed the practice of the Jewisii synasiojue, and as Ion;; as the 
simple institutions of the synago2:ue prevailed, no practice could be preferable. 
But when in the c^rowin;^ corruptions of the times, the ecclesiastical teachers 
possessed undue influence, and especially when they had arroc^ated to them- 
selves the appellation of the Church, then this judicial power, seemiuii^ly con- 
ferred on the Church by our Saviour and the apostles, by an abuse of words, 
became the means of establishing a spiritual despotism over the Christian 
world. Of all judges that have ever existed, the ecclesiastics have always 



308 

As we have now given some idea of the general slate of Chris- 
tendom, in the earher ages of its existence, we will now turn our 
attention to the ecclesiastics themselves, and from the scattered re- 
cords of these early times, we can not only discern the distractions 
of the public mind on religious subjects, such as I have stated it, 
but we seethe simple teachers of the gospel dispensation, gradually 
advancing in authority from their first position, towards the highest 
dignities that religious theory has ever conferred on human beings. 
Clement, in his epistle to the Corinthians, written about A. D. 96, 
and who, by-the-bye, only recognizes two orders of church officers, 
viz. bishops and deacons, mention great controversies in the church, 
and a struggle between certain members of the church in opposition to 
their teachers. He, supporting the authority of these last, calls on 
those "who laid the foundation of the sedition to submit themselves 
unto their elders, and to be instructed unto repentance. Learn to 
be subject, laying aside all proud and arrogant boasting of your 
tongues. For it is better for you to be found in the sheepfold of 
Christ, little and approved, than to appear superior to others, and 
to be cast out of his fold." 

Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, written about A. D. 
106, and who also recognizes two orders of church officers, also 
calls on the people to be "subject to the presbyters and deacons, as 
unto God and Christ." He entreats the presbyters to be compas- 
sionate, merciful to all, bringing back such as are in error, &c. 
He recommends them to be zealous of what is good, abstaining from 
all offence, and from false brethren, and from those who bear the 
name of Christ in hypocrisy, who deceive vain men," &;c. These 
expressions, besides other passages, that might be quoted, show us 
there was a contention among them, and that he sustained the 
teachers of the congregation in the general position taken by them. 
Ignatius especially shows us, that there was a great deal of 
schism and controversy in the Christian churches, during the latter 
part of his life, about A. D. 106. He very strongly takes part 
with the ecclesiastical teachers, whom we now find formerly enu- 
merated as bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So decidedly does he 
support the teachers in these controversies, that his expressions are 
absolutely blasphemous. Thus in the epistle to the Magnesians, he 
exhorts them to do all things in a divine concord; your bishop pre- 
siding in the place of God, and your presbyters in place of the 

shown the greatest disposition to be good judges, according to the law maxim, 
est bonijudicis ampliare jurisdictionem. 



309 

council of the apostles; and your deacons, most dear to me, intrust- 
ed with the ministry of Jesus Christ." 

In his epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius says, "let all rever- 
ence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father, 
and the presbyters as the council of God, and the assemblies of 
the apostles." Similar blasphemies are to be found in all of the 
epistles of Ignatius, and therefore, we need not be surprized to 
hear him say, as he does to the Smyrnians, "it is good to have due 
regard both to God and to the bishop. He that honors the bishop, 
shall be honored of God, but he that doeth any thing without this 
knowledge, (i. e. of the bishop,) ministers unto the devil." 

In his epistle to Polycarp, Ignatius calls on his people, thus, 
"Hearken ye all unto the bishop, that God also may hearken to you. 
My soul be security for those who submit to their bishop, presbyters, 
and deacons.'' 

From the preceding authorities, we may perceive that in the 
various controversies, heresies, aud schisms, that prevailed among 
the primitive Christians, their ecclesiastical teachers were contin- 
ually growing in authority and reverence. Clement and Polycarp, 
like the New Testament writers, speak only of two orders of church 
officers, but Ignatius formally enumerates the bishop as distinct from 
the presbyters and deacons, and extols his office in the highest 
terms. But though his comparisons are actually blasphemous, still 
he does not quote any text of the New Testament as conferring a 
divine commission to them as ecclesiastics. If the doctrine had 
been established in his time, it is seemingly impossible he should 
have omitted to state its obligation. 

One hundred and thirty years after Ignatius, we find in the writ- 
ings of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, not only a claim for a divine 
commission to bishops, presbyters, and deacons, but we also per- 
ceive that the ecclesiastics had now taken their stand, as being con- 
stituted under those sanctions that belonged to the priesthood of the 
old Jewish church. 

As it would be altogether conjectural to attempt to ascertain how 
this new theory originated in the Christian church, I shall forbear 
to speculate on the various particulars that might have possibly 
led to such a conclusion.* That the proceeding was very indirect, 

•Though all the sects and writers that opposed the unity and orthodoxy 
of the church, in these early times, are exceedingly misrepresented, there 
can belittle doubt but that many of them were honest good Christians, whose 
chief offence lay in opposing the corruptions of the times, and especially in 
resisting ecclesiastical usurpations. Whenever the reader finds any ancient 
heretics stigmatized for rejecting the Old Testament, he may take it almost 
for granted that they opposed the authority of the Christian ministry, as ar- 



310 

there can be no doubt, for the New Testament writers have never 
said one word, which would admit of comparing the Christian 
teachers to the Aaronical priesthood, and neither has the word 
priest been used in a single passage of the New Testament, in any 
connection with the office of teacher, under the gospel dispensation. 

But, whatever may have been the means, the fact itself is certain, 
the word presbyter gave place to the word priest, which has con- 
tinued in use from that time to the present, so that priest and priest- 
hood, are terms now formally consecrated in certain Christian 
churches, as distinguishing their ecclesiastical body. Much as the 
primitive church is extolled, and a conformity to its apostolical in- 
stitutions insisted upon, yet the ministers of religion, in certain 
churches, are not ordained by their New Testament appellation of 
presbyters, but are consecrated as priests, a word which the New 
Testament never applied to them, and with which their functions 
have not the least analogy. 

Scarcely are there any subjects of comparison less similar than 
the priest under the Mosaic institutions, and the presbyter of the 
gospel. If the reader will turn back to page 197, where we have 
exhibited the actual position of the Jewish priesthood, under the in- 
stitutions of Moses, it will be seen that their function was to offer 
sacrifices, burn incense, and perform certain duties pertaining to the 
immediate temple. Our Christian ministry have no sacrifices to 
make, and no incense to burn. The Jewish priests were never 
instructors and teachers of the people. Our Christian ministry 
have alone this duty to perform, for there is not another function 
committed to their hands by the New Testament. Of those that 
they have arrogated to themselves as their exclusive right, such as 
ordination of ministers, baptism of converts, and the administration 
of the Lord's supper, these were not either in themselves, or in 
analogous institutions, acts of the Jewish priesthood, but of the syna- 
gogue ministers. The Jewish priest was born a priest. The pres- 
byters or bishops, and the deacons, were officers of the synagogue, 
and with whose ordination the priesthood had no concern. Circum- 
cision, whether of Jewish males, or of a heathen convert, if analo- 
gous to baptism, was performed by persons delegated by the syna- 
gogues, and was not performed either by a priest, or under their 
permission. The paschal supper, upon which our ceremony of the 

rogating to themselves the priestly office under the sanctions of the Jewish 
appointments. These heretics did not reject the Old Testament, but they 
denied that the institutions of the Old Testament were then of obli^^ation, 
and as this doctrine laid the axe to the root of the priestly foundation of the 
Christian ministry, the orthodoxy and the unity of the church voted them 
heretics, and enlarged the Hbel by the most unwarrantable charges. The 
History of the Waldenses abounds in such facts. 



311 

Lord's supper was immediately founded, and which commemorated 
what the paschal supper anticipated, was a rite performed by the 
people at large, and with which the priesthood had no concern what- 
ever.* 

But, however great the dissimilarity may be that exists between 
the functions of the Jewish priesthood, and the Christian ministry, 
the dulness, or the religious pride of the earlier Christians, seems to 
have been gratified with the forced comparison, and hence the 
sanctions, the consecration, and the revenues, that Jehovah appointed 
the Jewish priesthood, were gradually and diligently systematized 
into sanctions, consecrations, and revenues, pertaining to the clergy 
of the Christian church. Under the habitual use of these misappli- 
cations of Scripture, the Christian ministry were at last regarded as 
a body actually consecrated by the word of God, and as possessing 
powers by which they of right directed the faith and practice of the 
Christian world. 

The last steps to ecclesiastical aggrandizement, arose from the ex- 
clusion of the laity from all deliberation in church matters about the 
time of Constantine the Great, from that period, the clergy, unre- 
strained by any counterbalancing influence, ordered all things to the 
exaltation of their own order. 

We have no concern with the histoiy of the Christian churches 
after this time, it is sufficient for us briefly to remark, that the estab- 
lishment of ecclesiastical power, over the conscience of the laity, 
brought no peace or rest to the world on the subject of religion. 
Heresies, from time to time broke out among the clergy themselves, 
which, from the greater pride and presumption of the ecclesiastics, 
threatened almost the destruction of Christianity itself. 

To settle disputes among them, councils of bishops now became 
necessary, and the unity, and the orthodoxy of the church, being 
as heretofore determined by the votes of the majority, they brought 
continually all church matters into a more precise and determinate 
establishment, whose inevitable tendency must be ultimately to 
make some one bishop or other, paramount to the rest. After a greater 
or less contest for the supremacy with the greater prelates of the 

♦Archbishop Magee, in his valuable work on the Atonement, has in a brief 
manner attempted to show that the Passover was asacrifice, and that the blood 
of the lamb vi^as sprinkled on the altar by a priest. But the archbishop is cer- 
tainly in error as to the agency of the priesthood in the celebration of the Pass- 
over, and has given credit to the rabbinical statements, which I shall show are 
as monstrously incredible, as any other particular related by them in the Tal- 
mud. As this subject is of some importance, I have endeavored to show that 
fact in our first Appendix. 



312 

empire, the bishop of Rome at last obtained this high position, and 
assuming to himself the title of Vicar of the Son of God, he ruled, 
either directly or indirectly, over the consciences of all Christendom. 

Whatever may have been the ambition, hypocrisy, or craft, exer- 
cised by individuals, during this gradual corruption of Christianity, 
yet, there can be no doubt, the great majority of men labored to- 
gether with all simplicity and integrity to establish this state of 
things, which they honestly considered to be to the glory of God 
and the good of mankind.* 

The portentous system thus established by the earlier Christians, 
was accomphshed under the influence of principles which we can 
readily estimate. The primitive Christians, forsaking the simplicity 
of the gospel, insensibly, and gradually, introduced mere human 
decrees and precepts into their obligations, which insensibly and 
gradually transferred the faith and obedience of the Christian world 
from the revelationsof the Scripture, to the body of their theological 
teachers. These decided for the people every thing they should 
believe, and every thing they should not believe, and thus, as the 
people ceased to exercise themselves before Jehovah, according 
to his revealed will, he forsook them, and they fell, like the Jews 
before them, into judicial blindness, which, acting and reacting on 
their ecclesiastical constitutions, at last induced an entire departure 
from the word of God, and the establishment both of doctrines and 
practices, which were diametrically opposite to his revealed will. 

The practice of deciding by a plurality of votes, whether in con- 
gregations or in councils of ecclesiastics, necessarily brought false 
doctrines and superstitious practices into the Church, and then con- 
secrated them with authority. Neither the congregation or the 
Church had any right to determine on religious subjects, it was 
the duty of individuals alone, and when the congregation or the 
Church usurped this authority, as they had no warrant from the 
Scriptures, so they had no influence of Jehovah to enlighten them, 
and they continually fell into error and delusion. Thus, for in- 
stance, instead of confining themselves to censuring Arius, for pro- 
mulgating a presumptuous doctrine, they undertook to establish the 

* Notwithstanding the enormous abuse and corruptions of the Romish church, 
I have not the smallest doubt that the great majority of their clergy have al- 
ways acted with the most honest intentions. That they were under a most 
gross delusion, and that their proceedings, in many instances, were directly 
contrary to the Scripture, I at once acknowledge, but that there was any wil- 
ful violation of the Scripture, or that they were not conscientious in their 
acts, I unhesitatingly deny; and he must have a very limited acquaintance 
with human nature, that can fall into the error of misjudging them on this sub- 
ject. 



313 
true doctrine on the subject, and by this act they became just * 
heretical as he had been, for the doctrine is incapable of a human 
resolution, and ought to have been so stated. 

After the Christian world had endured the domination of the 
church of Rome for nearly a thousand years, and had submitted to 
the decrees of their ecclesiastical masters as if from Jehovah him- 
self, the arrogance of the church became insupportable, their powers 
were so grossly abused, and the doctrines they taught became so 
flagrantly contrary to what the Scriptures had enjoined; that the 
human mind could no longer endure this abject condition under the 
cruel or degrading punishments to which every one was exposed, 
who presumed to differ in speculation or in practice from the stand- 
ards authorized by the uncompromising church. 

Gradually, the resistance to the church of Rome became formi- 
dable by the number of her assailants, and finally, the Reformation 
commenced, which under the preaching of Luther and his asso- 
ciates, soon maintained itself against all the force that Rome ad- 
vanced to crush its rising energy. The publication of the Scrip- 
ture in the vernacular languages of Europe, consummated the tri- 
umph of the Reformers, and many parts of Christendom awoke as 
if from the stupor of narcotic influence, and threw off the allegiance 
they had previously conceded to the self styled Catholic Church. 

But though the champions of the Reformation effected as much as 
it was possible for men to have done at the time, they, nevertheless, 
came out of the Romish church, more or less bewildered with her 
enchantments, which required time and patience for them to under- 
stand and to get rid of. Unfortunately, however, they were not 
aware of their blindness and ignorance, and in consequence of which 
the brilliant prospects of the Reformation were soon obscured with 
a cloud, whose evil influence has overshadowed Christendom from 
the end of the sixteenth century. 

Though the first Protestant reformers clearly taught that the ob- 
ligations of Christianity were alone to be derived from the revela- 
tions of the Scripture, and that the consciences of men owed no al- 
legiance on religious subjects, to any body of human beings what- 
ever, yet they unfortunately did not perceive that what is to be 
termed revealed in the Scripture, must be clearly and distinctly re- 
vealed, and that inferences from Scripture passages are not reve- 
lations. Unfortunately, this distinction, which is however a leoriti- 
mate principle of the reformation, was not discerned, and the Prot- 
estant theologians too soon began to speculate and dispute on sub- 
40 



314 

jects with which they had no concern, and which in numerous in- 
stances were altogether incomprehensible. The spirit of sect drew 
the advocates of similar notions together, and who soon constituted 
themselves into churches, with a complete system of doctrines and 
discipline, intolerant of the least shade of dissent, and to which the 
members were bound by oaths of submission, administered in the 
most solemn manner. Protestant churches were thus placed under 
the supervision of theological teachers, who, like all other teachers, 
esteem a difference of opinion with themselves to be insulting in 
the first instance, and if persevered in, to be schism^ which word 
now became a term of reproach with Protestants, as heresy had been 
with the Catholics. 

The purification of Christianity thus was suddenly checked 
among the Protestant churches, and nothing has preserved them 
from falling into greater corruption, but the important principle of 
putting the Scriptures into the hands of the laity, and recognizing 
it to be alone the rule of Christian faith. The Scriptures have 
thus kept light and truth in the world, and though the beneficial 
examination of Scripture truth has been greatly impeded by the 
presumptuous notions and doctrines, which our Protestant churches 
have determined on many subjects of Christian faith, yet individ- 
uals in considerable numbers, have more or less disengaged them- 
selves from the thralls of ecclesiastical institutions, and have by 
isolated efforts, sustained the truth, and disencumbered it from many 
presumptuous doctrines, maintained by those ecclesiastics who 
founded our Protestant churches during the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth centuries. 

Whatever improvement has taken place in Christendom on re- 
ligious subjects since that time, has been from individual exertions, 
and the increasing amount of knowledge among the people at large. 
The churches considered as ecclesiastical corporations, have not 
only done nothing, but they have opposed improvement. They 
have, indeed, in some instances, been dragged onwards by the ne- 
cessities of the times, but generally speaking, they detest improve- 
ment. They look backward on their ancient state, when their 
forms and creeds were regarded with greater reverence, when the 
term schismatic was sufficiently terrifying to induce men to conform 
rigidly to whatever their articles or confessions had set forth as the 
true principles of Christian faith; and when to doubt concerning 
their truth, was almost as great an offence as to doubt of the inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures themselves. 



315 

I cannot take the space to show how mischievous the influence 
of creeds and articles of faith have been in the Protestant churches. 
If theology had been left free to the understanding and conscience 
of pious and learned men, to develope truth as they gradually ac- 
quired more light, though they might, from time to time, have 
fallen into mistakes, yet a succeeding generation would have been 
able to see their error, and to correct its improper influence. 
Whereas by enacting articles and creeds, under the obligation of 
oaths, errors and mistakes have been rivetted on the human mind, 
under the conceit of a divine sanction. 

If theology had been left free from these pernicious restraints, 
would it have less tended towards its perfection than the faculties 
of medicine, law, or any other branch of human knowledge? Cer- 
tainly not. There is no more inducement for men to go wrong on 
theology, than on any other subject, and if a man be honest, he has 
a guidance which attends no other employment of the human un- 
derstanding. The spiritual influences of Jehovah are promised to 
all who will ask that assistance of him, and who will presume to 
say that he is not faithful in his promise? 

But, however wonderful the rise and progress of the ecclesiastics 
has been, and however disproportionate their authority is, and has 
been, as estimated by the simple text of the Scripture, yet there is 
no difficulty in perceiving the means by which these mighty efl^ects 
have been produced. The world, in general, do not perceive and 
understand them, because they look for causes proportionate to the 
magnitude of the result, as manifested in the consummation of the 
system itself. But as no proportionate cause can be discerned, the 
mind falls back on itself harrassed with the seeming profitless in- 
vestigation, and bewildered by its inability to comprehend a subject 
so extremely interesting in the intellectual history of mankind. 

The means by which ecclesiastical authority has been and yet is 
sustained, greatly depends, among other causes, upon the fact that the 
people entirely misapprehend their condition as undergoing probation 
before Jehovah. Instead of discerning that God requires the simple 
exercise of our individual understanding and conscience, in its own 
ability to discern truth, as revealed in the Scriptures, men consider 
themselves to be undergoing probation upon a system based in the 
absolute principles of God's incomprehensible purposes and attri- 
butes, and concerning which if a man does not hold the true doc- 
trine on such subjects, he is actually guilty of sin. 

In consequence of this utter misapprehension of the theory of 
Christianity, the great aim of Christians has not l)cen to exercise 



316 

themselves as free and independent individuals, responsible alone in 
their individual consciences before their Creator, but they have la- 
bored to be orthodox in their doctrines and opinions, which necessa- 
rily transfers a man from the simplicity of the Scripture communi- 
cations to the intricacies of human systems that attempt to exhibit 
this desirable amount of orthodoxy. In the first ages of Christianity 
this notion invested the opinions of the simple teachers of the gos- 
pel with authority, as compared with those who were not teachers. 
The same theory, which has been in operation ever since, has con- 
tinually magnified the ecclesiastical teachers in opposition to those 
who entertained differing or hostile opinions with the orthodox, that 
is to say, the majority. No one must fall into the notion of consider- 
ing that the Church has ever had any continuance of calm or tranquil- 
lity. There has never been a time in which the mind and con- 
sciences of men have been at rest. There never has been a time 
that some discussion or controversy was not agitating, more or less, 
the tranquillity of the Christian church, nor will it ever cease, until 
the consummation of all things. It is in this perpetual agitation that 
our probation consists, and in which we, as free agents, are so to ex- 
ercise ourselves, that we may be found blameless in the day of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

Therefore, we again reiterate, let no man, on the peril of his soul, 
concede authority in religion to any other man, or corporation of 
men. Whether they be clergymen or laymen, it is the same thing. 
Every one must determine truth and religion for himself, by hifi 
own conscientious perceptions. We must determine for ourselves, 
for we shall be judged in ourselves. 



APPENDIX, No. 1. 



L(yrd Bolingbroke, on the Goodness of God. 

[Note to page 49.] 

"Though I think that the moral attributes of the Supreme Being, are 
absorbed, as I expressed myself before in his wisdom, that we should 
consider them only as different modifications of this physical attribute, 
whatever ideas we may frame on the phenomena, and that we must al- 
ways talk precariously and impertinently, when we presume to apply our 
ideas of them to the appearances of things; yef, I think it proper to show 
the divine and the atheist, that even the goodness of God, is not hard to de- 
fend against them both, by every one who denies, as every one may most 
reasonably, the question they beg and grant in consequence of their 
alliance to one another. 

"The wisdom, is not so often discernable by us as the power of God, 
nor the goodness, as the wisdom. But a multitude of the phenomena 
being conformable to our ideas of goodness, we may reason about it as 
we did just now about the divine wisdom. If our adversaries show that 
men are exposed to many physical and moral evils, we can show much 
more good of both kinds, that God has bestowed on us, or put it into our 
power to procure to ourselves. The evils we complain of, are constant 
or occasional effects of the constitution of a world, that was not made for 
our sakes. But the means to soften some, to prevent othors, and to pal- 
liate, and even to cure those that cannot be prevented, are so many in- 
stances of the positive goodness of God, which ought to be brought to 
account, and set against the evils with greater gratitude, and more fairly 
than they are, by men who pass them slightly over, whilst they descend 
into every particular of the sort, aggravate the least, and declaim pathetic- 
ally and partially on all. 

"It would be easy to confirm and illustrate what is advanced in the phy- 
sical part, by numerous and unanswerable proofs, which are to be found 
in the writings of natural philosophers. These men have done more 
service to true theism, than all the metaphysical reasoners a priori; or to 
say something stronger and equally true, they have done it more service, 
than divines and atheists in confederacy have done it hurt. It is impos- 
sible to read with attention, and without prejudice, what the former have 
writ, and not be convinced by fact, and by reason grounded on fact, not 
on hypothesis; frst, that we ought to consider the world we inhabit no 
otherwise than as a little wheel in our solar system, nor our solar system 
any otherwise, than as a little, but larger wheel, in the immense machine 
of the universe, and both the one and the other necessary perhaps to the 
motion of the whole, and to the pre-ordained revolutions in it; nor with- 
out being convinced, secondly, that the wisdom, or if you had rather say 



318 [Ap. No. 1. 

so, the goodness of God, has provided amply for the well being of man 
in this world, and of the whole animal kind, who are objects of the divine 
care, as well as he, according to their various destinations. In fine, 
and to take away every atheistical subterfuge, whether we say that the 
several species of animals were the final causes of these things, which 
seem particularly adapted to the use of each, or whether we say, that the 
world was made such as it is without any regard to them; the proofs of 
divine wisdom and goodness will be equally strong; for, if the world was 
made for the universe only, and without any regard to its future inhabit- 
ants, this wisdom and goodness were exercised as much in fitting these 
inhabitants to live commodiously in a world already made, as they could 
have been in making a world on purpose for them. 

"But we are not to think in this manner of the divine proceedings, nor 
to imagine that in them one plan succeeded another. Both were alike 
present to the mind of God. Our planet might have been, even unin- 
habited, very fit for all the mechanical purposes of it in the material sys- 
tem. But there may be other purposes which the creation of animals 
was necessary to answer, and since they were created, we ought to think 
that they were so for some purpose. It might be determined in the di- 
vine ideas, that there should be a gradation of life and intellect throughout 
the universe. In this case, it was necessary that there should be some 
creatures at our pitch of rationality, and others endued with all the de- 
grees of life, sense, and intellect, which we observe in the several species, 
from the insect, up to men. This world might be allotted to such kinds 
and orders of animated beings, and though it was made for the universe, 
not for them, and to their well-being in the constitution of it. They 
were not made to be miserable. But even man was not made to be hap- 
pier than it was consistent with this part of the material system, and with 
his own rank in the intellectual that he should be." Lord Bolingbroke, 
Fragment of Essays, 43. 



On Lord Broiighani's opinion of the value of Miracles, as evi- 
dence of the credibility of a person claiming to have come from 
God. 

[ Note to page 116. ] 

Of all the extraordinary notions entertained by philosophers on the 
subject of miracles, the one urged by Lord Brougham, in his Discourse 
on Natural Theology, seems to me the strangest. Suppose "says his 
Lordship," it were shown by incontrovertible proofs, that a messenger 
sent immediately from heaven had appeared on the earth; — suppose, to 
make the case more strong against our argument, that this messenger 
arrived in our own days, nay, appeared before our eyes, and showed his 
divine title to have his message believed, by performing miracles in our 
presence. No one can by possibility imagine a stronger case, for it ex- 
cludes all arguments upon the weight or the fallibility of testimony; it 
assumes all the ordinary difficulties in the way of revelation to be got 
over. Now even this strong evidence, would not at all establish the truth 
of the doctrine promulgated by the messenger, for it would not show that 
the story he brought was worthy of belief in any one particular, except 
his supernatural powers. These would be demonstrated by his working 
miracles. All the rest of his statement would rest on his assertion. But 
a being capable of working miracles, might very well be capable of de- 
ceiving us. This messenger might come from an evil, as well as from a 
good being; he might come from more beings than one; or he might come 
frofri one being of many existing in the universe." 



Ap. No. 1.] 319 

In order to determine the truth of a message, sustained by miraculous 
evidence, it is necessary, according to Lord Brougham, that we perceive 
the moral excellence, and beneficial tendency, of the message itself. 

Tliis is Realism in its superlative degree! and our discourse on that 
subject in a former page, cannot be now tertned unimportant, for if such 
a person as Lord Brougham has fallen into the delusions of Realism, 
what are we to suppose is the case with inferior men. 

A man, representing himself to be a messenger from the Creator of all 
things, in proof of his mission, exhibits an undoubted miracle: neverthe- 
less, says Lord Brougham, we cannot tell whether the being enabling 
the man to perform this miracle is good, or evil, supreme, or subordi- 
nate. Let this be so, nevertheless, no one can undertake to deny that all 
may be, precisely as the messenger has re])reseuled things to be, and 
this possibility entirely neutralizes the possibility of the contrary supposi- 
tion. We, therefore, stand upon equal ground as to possibility, and 
we must, therefore, of necessity, determine the credibility of the messen- 
ger performing the miracle, by an unavoidable reference to those princi- 
ples of knowledge, or experience, by which a rational man is alone guided 
in making his conclusion, or judgment. Now, which is the most rational 
proceeding? to believe a man who exhibits an undoubted miracle in con- 
firmation of the truth of his message, or to reject his message, and mira- 
cle, on the supposed possibility suggested by Lord Brougham. 

To reject a miracle as evidence, we ought to have argument or evi- 
dence of a weight or value superior to that conveyed to us by the exhibi- 
tion of the miracle. To reject the miracle upon the possibilities supposed 
by Lord Brougham, not only sets aside the contrary possibility without 
reason or argument, but it would not leave an ability in the supreme God 
himself to give any testimony of his own existence and power, for how 
could any one know that there was not another God still greater.? 

That Lord B. has fallen into a great oversight on this subject, will be 
further evident from the circumstance, that an eternal existence would 
not enable us to appreciate truth according to his views of its moral ex- 
cellence. For, certainly, there may be as much fraud concealed be- 
hind a system that proposes things beneficial to mankind, as behind the 
brilliancy of miraculous display: and, when should we cease to mistrust 
the possibility of deceit lurking for the favorable opportunity to display 
itself? Eternity would not be sufficient, for the doubter could never ar- 
rive at the time, when the possibility of deceit would not exist. 

The misjudgment of Lord B. on this subject, proceeds from his Real- 
ism, and from the influence of that mistaken notion, to which we have 
adverted in the note to page 9, viz. that incredulity is the natural 
condition of the human mind. We have there briefly shown, that this is 
not the fact, and that ignorance is our natural condition. Licredulity is 
a state of intellectual responsibility, whether on natural or religious sub- 
jects, and is only rational when justified by a sufficient view and know- 
ledge of things. The incredulity of ignorant persons is absurd. They 
have no right to say they have any opinion. 

To obtain evidence that shall guarantee us against all possibility of 
error, misapprehension, or delusion, is wholly impossible. Human na- 
ture, as being imperfect, cannot estimate things otherwise than with im- 
perfection. Our opinions must be determined by what we presume to 
be the best evidence, and, I apprehend, that there can he. foimd no ra- 
tional man, who would not consider miraculous evidence undoubtedly 
such; as being the best or highest evidence that can be fiunished to sub- 
stantiate the truth of a messenger asserting he comes from God. If any 
man rejects such evidence, he certainly is bound by every j)rinciple of 
rationality, to justify his incredulity by the exhibition of argument or 



320 [Ap. No. 1. 

evidence that is greater, or at least equivalent to the value of miraculous 
evidence. If he cannot furnish evidence of equivalent value, he is either 
foolish or insincere that pretends to be guided by evidence of a far inferior 
weight. 



On the supposed agency of the Jewish Priesthood in the cele- 
bration of the Passover. 

[Note to page 311.] 

As it is a common notion among the great body of Christians, that the 
Jewish priests had an agency in the celebration of the paschal supper, I 
deem it of sufficient importance to confute that notion, and show the 
utter absurdity of such a theory. 

It is certainly the doctrine of the Jews who follow the authority of the 
rabbis, that in the celebration of the passover, the lamb was taken to the 
temple, and was there slain by the person who brought it. The blood 
was then handed, according to the rabbis, to the priest, who sprinkled it 
upon the altar, and without this was done, the passover could not be eaten. 
If this be true, then certainly the priest had a direct and most important 
agency in the paschal supper. 

In the various rules given by Moses concerning the administration of 
the passover rites, there is not a word said concerning the priesthood; and 
that it was altogether an act to be performed by the laity, is not only the 
plain inference of the Scripture, but the circumstances of the case render 
it absolutely incredible and impossible, that any others than laymen, 
could have performed the rite. 

Without enumerating other particulars, we shall alone call the reader's 
attention to the fact, that Moses (Deut. xvi. 2 to 6) commanded that the 
paschal lamb should be slain "ai even, at the going down of the 5u/?," and 
as the Hebrew word even, signifies at the time of the mixture between day 
andnight, we would say, in the idiom of our language, during thetwilight. 
Now, as this twilight cannot, with any propriety, be extended to more 
than about half an hour in the latitude of Judea, it is utterly incredible 
that the blood of fifty thousand, much less a hundred thousand, or two 
hundred thousand lambs, could be offered and sprinkled on the altar in 
such a brief space of time, and it is, therefore, evident the priesthood had 
nothing to do with the passover. 

x\s the rabbis however found that this absurdity was too gross to be 
received in itself, they have attempted to remedy their position by an ad- 
ditional statement, but which we shall soon show, that notwithstanding 
its flagrant perversion of the Scripture direction, will not lessen the outra- 
geous absurdity of their whole doctrine. 

As the rabbis found that the twilight was absolutely contradictory of 
their statement, they adopted the explanation that the time of the going 
down of the sun, meant from the time the sun began to deflect from its 
meridian heighth, and thus they have endeavored to obtain the whole af- 
ternoon instead of the twilight. But, as the evening sacrifice must first 
be offered, they had to loose by this circumstance so much time, that they 
can scarcely claim four hours to perform the paschal sacrifice. 

Though even four hours were altogether insufficient to accomplish 
what the rabbis relate the priesthood performed, yet I will not confine 
ray refutation of their statement to this circumstance, but will make use 
of another particular of their relation. 

We are told by the rabbis, (see Lightfoot, Temple Service, chapter 12, 
section 3,) that whatever might be the number of paschal lambs to be 



Ap. No. 1.] 321 

slain, the persons so slaving thetn, were divided into Ihree companies, con- 
sequently, one-third of the vvliole inimber must stand and slay iiis lamb, 
skin, cleanse, and salt it, at one and the same time, in the court of the 
temple. Now, Joseplms tells us, (Jewish War, lib. vi. chap. 9.) that on 
a certain occasion, there were 25G 500 Iambs sacrificed. As (.'ach lamb 
was slain by a siuijle person, we must, therefore, find room in the court 
of the temple for 85,500 persons, to be thus occupied at the same mo- 
ment of time. 

Now the courts of Israel, and of the priests, in which the rabbis assert 
the paschal lambs were slain, were together 187 cubits long, by 135 cu- 
bits broad, (Lightfoot, Prosp, Temp., chapter xxxiii.) which, when re- 
duced to our measurement, will give an area of 6,307 square yards. But, 
from this we must deduct the ground occupied by tlie temple itself, the 
altars, tables, steps, desks for the Levites, rings for sacrifice, &c., which, 
together, cannot be less than one-third of the whole area. After making 
this deduction, and allowing but one square yard to each person slaying 
and skinning his lamb, and supposing not a single foot of ground un- 
equally occupied or lost, we shall find room for 4,200 persons to stand in. 
But as there were required a great many rows of priests to hand the 
blood along from the assembly until it reached the altar, and as the Le- 
vitical choir had to stand there and sing the hallel, we must make a fur- 
ther deduction of the room of — I do not know how many^hundred per- 
sons. But, surely, the absurdity of this statement of the rabbis is suffici- 
ently clear without further exhibition. We required room for 85,500 
persons, and we find it utterly imjjossible that even 4,000 could have ever 
stood in the court at one time. 

Confined to the limits of a note, I cannot enlarge further on this sub-- 
ject, though it is one deserving our attention. The statement made in 2 
Chron. xxx. 17, is a corruption of the text, direcdy in opposition to the 
institution of Moses, as any one who can read them can perceive. See 
Numbers ix. 6 to 12. The quotation from 2 Chron. xxxv. 10, 12, &c. is 
equally corrupt, for it says this was done as it was written in the law of 
Moses. As the two books of Chronicles were perfected by rabbi Simon 
the Just, (according to Prideaux, years B. C. 446, 459,) who added them 
to the canon, it is probable that these passages were corrupted by his 
hand, cither through inadvertence, or under the influence of rabbinical 
notions. 



41 



APPENDIX, No. 2. 



On the Incredulity of the Jews concerning Jesus of Nazareth as 
beins: the Messiah, 



"o 



[See page 223.] 

In beginning an attempt to appreciate the considerations that induced 
the Jews to reject Jesus of Nazareth as the 3Iessiah, we must caution 
the reader not to fall into the error of supposing, that the Jewish people 
were situated as we are at the present time, who have nothing to prevent 
a calm investigation of the testimony laid before us, and fairly deducing 
the true answer. I have already shown that the prophecies on the sub- 
ject of the Messiah are distinct as announcing the coming of a great and 
wonderful personage, and of his accomplishing a great moral revolution 
on the earth. Yet the particulars of the prophecies themselves, are so 
metaphorical and seemingly involved in circumstances so anomalous, 
that before the advent, it must have been impossible to have framed, 
with any regard to the strict propriety of the prophetic intimations, any 
clear view of the precise circumstances under which the Messiah should 
come, and proceed with the establishment of his sovereign dominion. 

But the Jews, unfortunately, had not been restrained by any diffi- 
dence of their perceptions on this subject, and assuming as undoubted 
truth, that the advent of the Messiah would be to their immediate bene- 
fit, they had resolved upon what was most suitable to their temporal 
prosperity, and this they awaited with anxious expectation to receive 
from his hands, the moment he should be manifested to them. And 
though they did acknowledge that all the nations of the earth should be 
benefited by his advent, they considered all this to be of mere seconda- 
ry importance to the exaltation and glory of the Jewish nation. 

But Jesus of Nazareth came to the Jews in a position altogether ad- 
verse to their expectation. When John the Baptist announced to them 
that this person was the Messiah, they appear to have followed him in 
considerable numbers, wondering at his miracles, and in daily expecta- 
tion of his proceeding to their immediate deliverance from the Roman 
yoke. But seeing that he attempted nothing of this kind, in a very 
little time, they fell off from him, while he, seemino-ly averse to announce 
himself publicly to be the Messiah, traversed Judea, proclaiming every 
where that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and performing mira- 
cles of a most benevolent kind, wherever he went. In the course of 
this ministry, he was continually brought into collision with the rabbis 
and scribes, whom he grievously offended, and with them all other 
bigots, by denouncing the corrupt doctrines and practices they taught 
the people. He asserted the rabbis to be blind leaders of the blind, 



Ap. No. 2.] 323 

many of them worldly minded hypocrites, and that they had made the 
law of Jehovah naught, through their ohservance of the traditions of the 
elders. During all this time, he made no open claim to be the Messiah, 
though that impression prevailed among the people generally, who saw 
the marvels he performed, but not until his triumphant entry into Jeru- 
salem, (Math, xxi.) did he distinctly and openly avow his claim to that 
title. 

By this lime the scribes or learned men, and the sects both of Phari- 
sees and Sadducees, were formally arrayed in hostility against him, in 
consequence of the denunciations he had urged against their corruptions 
of the law of Jehovah, and now his open assumption of the title of 
Messiah, under a condition of life, and a procedure so directly opposed 
to their theory on that subject, urged them to the utmost degree of 
hatred and opposition against him. Full of deadly hostility, they did 
every thing they could to compass his destruction, and having extorted 
his condemnation from the unwilling Roman governor, he was put to 
death amidst insulting taunts as a blasphemer and impostor. 

But during the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the admirable doctrines 
he taught, the apparent fulfilment of many prophecies in his advent, and 
the extraordinary miracles he fconstantly performed, had excited the 
most favorable expectations from many thousands of the less bigoted 
people. But the prejudices of their education were so inveterate, that 
they could not discern the religious errors into which they had been 
plunged by their teachers, nor cease to expect the Messiah as a temporal 
prince. Hence in a state of entire mental perplexity as to what they 
ought to believe concerning Jesus of Nazareth, they awaited some more 
signal manifestation of his real character. 

When these perplexed and doubting persons saw him put to death, 
their hopes and expectations perished, and they considered him alas to 
have been a deceiver of the people. 

But after the day of Pentecost, when the disciples came forth with 
that supernatural power with which they had been invested, and when 
the people saw the miracles that were done in the name of Jesus of 
Nazareth, and when the apostles showed how largely the prophecies had 
been fulfilled in his advent, in his life, and in his ignominious death, 
than those that had before doubted in the simplicity of ignorant pre- 
judices, could disbelieve no more, but were converted by thousands to 
the Christian faith. 

But the Jewish rabbis, the bigots, and all influenced by them, were 
unaffected by the accomplishment of prophecy, and display of miracle 
exhibited by the apostles in the name of Jesus Christ. They persisted 
in their unbelief, and persecuted those who left the traditionary faith 
of their fathers, until the time of vengeance approached, and Jehovah 
destroyed their city and nation, and dispersed the unhappy survivors 
into all the regions of the earth. 

To find a sufficient natural reason why the Jews continued to reject 
Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, after they had witnessed the miracu- 
lous exhibitions made by him, and his immediate disciples for near forty 
years together, is therefore seemingly impossible. 

He was of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David, he was born 
of a virgin at Bethlehem. He came at the end -of Daniel's prophetic 
week, and when he came, the sceptre was no longer in Jewish hands. 
He had fulfilled a most philanthropic and benevolent ministry, in heal- 
ing all manner of diseases and afflictions. He had been a man of sor- 
row and afflictions, he had found his death with the wicked, and his 
grave had been with the rich. His hands, his feet, and his side had been 
pierced, and not a bone had been broken. He was asserted to have risen 



324 [Ap. No. 2. 

from the dead, and to have taken possession of an everlasting throne as 
foretold by the prophets; and his kingly power was manifested by the 
signs and wonders, that he enabled his followers to perform by invoking 
his name. These evidences, besides other prophecies that were daily 
fulfilling around in the conversion of the Gentiles, seem to us ought to 
have been sufficient to convince any one, that tl)e Messiah was not such 
a person as Jewish theory had from mere anticipation of prophecy ex- 
pected; and a mere human doctrine on that subject, ought to have given 
way to the evident fulfilment of so large an amount of prophecy, fur- 
ther attested by the open exhibition of miraculous power. 

But the great stumbling block to the Jews on this subject, was their 
infatuation with respect to the traditional observances of the Mosaical 
law, in which their learning and religion were at that time, wholly ab- 
sorbed. The institutions which they had received from Jehovah, through 
Moses, had been appointed them to keep for ever, and they could not 
comprehend how any one claiming to be the anointed Messiah, could 
arraign them as blinded and hypocrites, and of breaking the commands 
of Jehovah, when they considered they were glorifying him by these 
very observances. 

But their error on this subject, had been sufficiently pointed out to 
them by Jesus of Nazareth himself, for those doctrines that he con- 
denmed, were not ordinances of Moses, but of mere men who had added 
their precepts to the law of Jehovah, in express disobedience to his 
commandment that they should neither add to, nor diminish from, his 
requirements. As every Jew knew of these precepts of Deut. iv. 2, xii. 
32, it would seem to us, that every rational man could easily see by re- 
ferring to the Pentateuch, what were the commands of Jehovah, and if 
they found they had adopted any doctrine or practice not enacted there, 
it would seem to be the unavoidable conclusion that their doctrine or 
practice was a precept of men, and so far wrong as being an addition to 
the law of God. 

Jesus told them expressly, he had not come to destroy the law of 
Moses, but to fulfil it, and never contemplated, as far as I can see, the 
abrogation of that law as it concerned the Jewish people.* What he 
required, was that they should disregard the traditions of the elders, 
the constructive precepts of the rabbis, worship Jehovah as he had ap- 
pointed them by Moses, and receive himself as the Messiah. 



* I apprehend the Christian world, generally speaking, entertain a very er- 
roneous doctrine on this subject. Taylor of Norwich, in his paraphrase on the 
Romans, chap. xiv. seems to have the best views on this subject of any 
writer with whom I am acquainted. We cannot, however, take the room ne- 
cessary to lay them fully before the reader. After quoting all those passages 
from the New Testament, which state the various instances in which tlie 
apostles conformed to mere Judaical institutions, he makes the following ra- 
tional observation, "The rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses was in- 
corporated into the civil state of the Jews, and so might be considered as 
national and political usages. Now as the gospel did not interfere with, or sub- 
vert any national polity upon earth, but left all men in all the several countries 
of the globe to live in all things not sinful, according to the civil constitution 
under which it found them; so it left the Jews also at hberty to observe all the 
rites and the injunctions of the law of Moses, considered as a part of the civil 
and political usages of the nation." 

In short the establishment of Christianity, if it had been received by the 
Jews, need not have set aside scarcely a single institution of Moses. Even 
the sacrifices themselves might have been" continued, only that henceforth 
they must be considered commemorative, instead of being as heretofore ty- 
pical of the Redeemer's sacrifice. 



Ap. No. 2.] 325 

But however plain and simple the course was that the Jews ou^Mit to 
have taken on tiiis subject, we find they obstinately refused to change 
their doctrines, they closed their ears against argument, and they re- 
sisted the evidence atforded them in the miracles ])erformed for their 
conversion. Nothin<j was sufficient to convince them, they persisted in 
regarding Jesus of Nazareth as an impostor, and liis followers to be an 
ignorant deluded multitude. 

The only intelligible groimd that the Jews could have taken to justify 
so unreasonable a proceeding, as far as I can appreciate their conduct, 
seems to have been, that, as they believed, at the time of our Saviour's 
advent, in magic and demoniacal agencies, so they niight have imagined 
that the miracles performed by Jesus of Nazareth and his disci[)les were 
permitted by Jehovah, that he might try them, as was intimated by the 
statement made by IMoses in Deut. xiii. 1 to 3, &c. 

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giv- 
eth thee a sign or a wonder, 

And the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, say- 
ing, let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve 
them; 

Thou shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dream- 
er of dreams,/or/^e Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love 
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." 

But the Jews must have been miserably blinded in their intellectual per- 
ceptions, if the preceding verses could be supposed applicable to Jesus 
of Nazareth and his disciples, for they did not teach that they should for- 
sake the God of their fathers and worship another God; they alone urg- 
ed men to worship Jehovah, and by their instrumentality alone, the wor- 
ship of Jehovah has been carried to the ends of the earth. 

As the case of the false prophet, as stated above, is wholly inapplica- 
ble to the history of Jesus of Nazareth, it is incredible that persons in 
the possession of their senses could have been influenced by such a no- 
tion, and in thus setting aside the only consideration I can suppose they 
might have misapplied, I come directly to the conclusion, that the Jewish 
rejection of Jesus Christ was the most unreasonable proceeding ever ex- 
hibited in the history of mankind, and that so marvellous a degree of in- 
credulous obstinacy, is not to be explained, as far as I can perceive by 
any reference to ordinary views of human nature. 

From the prophetical writings, however, we can derive a solution to 
this otherwise inexplicable incredulity, and which not only removes eve- 
ry difficulty towards understanding that subject, but it distinctly shows 
how the very particulars of prophecy were fulfilled that had previously 
announced the Jews would reject the Messiah when he should come, 
and which was exactly fulfilled though they held these very prophecies 
in their hands. 

To explain this remarkable circumstance I must inform the reader that, 
among the various judgments that God declared should befal the Jewish 
nation in case they should disregard his commandments, was the one of 
intellectual blindness and infatuation. This particular judgment was for- 
mally announced to the Jews just before they took possession of the land 
of Canaan, Deut. xxviii. 28,29, and was from time to time, under various 
exhibitions, brought to their consideration by several of the prophets who 
urged them to amend their ways before Jehovah. Of these j)rophetical 
warnings, the most remarkable is that of Isaiah xxix. 9 to 14, who not 
only predicts that the deepest intellectual infatuation should, in the course 
of time, fall upon the Jews, but he also announced for what particular 
transgression such a judgment should be inflicted. 



326 [Ap. No. 2. 

The prophet, in a vision, sees the future condition of the Jewish na- 
tion, and informs us of its particulars in the following language: 

"Stay yourselves and wonder: cry ye out, and cry, they are drunken, 
but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. 

For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and 
hath closed your eyes; the prophets and your rulers, the seers, hath he 
covered. 

And the virion of all, {{. e. the whole scope of prophecy,) is become unto 
you as the words of a book that is sealed, (fastened up,) which men de- 
liver to one that is learned, saying, read this I pray thee; and he saith I 
cannot, for it is sealed. 

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, read this I 
pray thee, and he saith I am not learned." 

The prophet, in the preceding verses, distinctly npostrojjhisessome fu- 
ture intellectual bewilderment of the Jewish people, comparing it to the 
condition of persons intoxicated with strong drink, who reel and stagger 
about, destitute of reason and judgment. t 

The prophet, in short, exhibits them in that moral condition which we 
now designate by the term of judicial blindness. The professors of re- 
ligion termed the prophets, the rulers, and the people generally, the learn- 
ed and the unlearned alike, are represented as laboring under an intellec- 
tual stupefaction that rendered them regardless of things that arrest the 
attention of those in complete possession of their senses and faculties. 
In consequence of which judicial stupor, the revelations that God had 
communicated to the nation by the prophets, of his future purposes, and 
which were most essentially relative to the Messiah, had become undis- 
cernable and unprofitable to them. They were as unintelligible to them 
as the contents of an unopened book is to a learned man, or as a book is 
unintelligible to an ignorant man who has never learned to read. Both 
comparisons exhibiting, with the utmost distinctness, that there would be 
a time when the whole scope and subject of the prophetic intimations 
should become wholly unintelligible to the JeAvish people. 

But why did Jehovah thus visit the Jewish people? Why did he 
bring this moral stupor and blindness upon them? The prophet informs 
us very positively in the verses immediately following those we have 
just quoted: 

"Wherefore the Lord said, forasmuch as (i. e. since or because) this 
people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, 
but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me, is 
taught by the precept of men; 

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this 
people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise 
men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." 

Though the import of these verses be very clear, let us analyse their 
remarkable significance, lest any just inference escape our attention. Je- 
hovah does not here charge the Jews with any immorality, idolatry, or 
other rebellion against him, not even with a neglect of his service. On 
the contrary, he says expressly, they do draw near 7ne with their mouth, 
they do honor me with their lips, but their hearts or their affections they 
have removed far from me. Their reverence of me is determined by the 
precepts of men, and not according to my requirements. In other words, 
they have substituted a service of ivill ivorship, a religion of their own 
devising, instead of the one I had commanded them. Wherefore I will 
cause a marvellous exhibition of judgment on them. The undei-stand- 
ing of these will-worshippers shall fail them altogether, and the judgment 
of their wise men shall utterly perish. 

Nothing, therefore, can be clearer than that this prophecy should be ful- 



Ap. No. 2.] 327 

filled in some future time on the Jews, and, as our Saviour did quote this 
very prophecy as being applicable to the Jews of his era,* so I apprehend 
there can be no difficulty in considering that the extraordinary and other- 
wise unaccountable incredulity of the Jews, concerning Jesus of Naza- 
reth, is solved in the fact, that they were then actually laboring under deep 
intellectual infatuation, occasioned by that amount of prejudices, will- 
orship, and superstition, which had been accumulating among them grad- 
ually from an early age, through the precepts and teachings of men, and 
on the observance of which things, the prophetic denunciation of Isaiah 
was expressly based. 

Though I apprehend that our Saviour's application of this remarkable 
prophecy to the Jews of his time, and his frequent reproach to them con- 
cerning their observance of human doctrines and traditions, entirely jus- 
tifies the theory we have advanced on this subject; yet we can adduce 
some presumptive evidence from other considerations, to show that an in- 
tellectual stupefaction, almost amounting to insanity, prevailed among 
the Jews, at times so near the advent, that I apprehend no reasonable man 
can doulit that its actual influences must have prevailed, in a greater or 
less degree, at the very time the Redeemer was upon earth. The first 
evidence on this point which may be deemed palpable to any intelligent 
man, is the proceeding of the Jews before and during the siege of Jeru- 
salem by Titus, of which any one can judge who will read Josephus. 
The second proof I shall exhibit, is from evidence furnished by the 
insane Talmud, of Babylon, which, as being written but 150 years after 
Christ in order to preserve the traditions of their fathers, will carry us 
up so near to the advent that it requires no unreasonable stretch of our 
historical faith to consider the doctrines taught in the Talmud prevailed 
both at and before our Saviour's advent. 

That the conduct of the Jews both before and during- the siege of Je- 
rusalem, is alone explainable by the supposition that they were in a state 
of infatuation, intermingled with actual insanity, I apprehend no one can 
doubt who will read the works of Josephus, but since his history is one 
of the commonest books among us, I shall refer the reader to it without 
making any extracts from its statements. 

But our argument as derived from the authority of the Talmud 
with the Jews at so early a period as that in which it was written, is 
alone procurable from sources more inaccessible to general readers, I 
shall, therefore, lay before them such an exhibition of the Talmud, that 
any one shall be able to determine this point to his own satisfaction. 

The history of the Talmud may be briefly stated. It appears from 
that book, that the Jews, from an unknown lime previous to its publica- 
tion, had held the extraordinary doctrine, that when God revealed the 
law to Moses at Mount Sinai, that he also made him a private revelation 
of its significance, and communicated information on a number of other 
subjects that are not even hinted at in the written law. This oral or tra- 
ditionary law, Moses was forbidden to put in writing, but was to commu- 
nicate it verbally to Aaron and certain of his sons, and they, in their genera- 
tions, to others successively. This proceeding the Jews very minutelydetail, 
and name the individuals by whom the oral law was transmitted from the 
time of Moses until that of rabbi Judah Hakkodesh, who, A. D. 150, un- 
dertook to commit it to writing that it might be preserved from the ap- 
parently inevitable destruction, which, at that time, seemed likely to over- 
whelm the rabbis and their schools. 

That I may furnish the reader with the best means in my power to 

* See Matt. xiii. 14, 15, xv. 7, 8,9; Mark vii. 6 to 9, 13. Also Acts of the 
Apostles xxviii. 25 to 28. 



328 [Ap. No. 2. 

rightly estitnate the Talrnudic writings, I shall lay before him several ex- 
tracts from Purchus's Pilgrims, which furnish us with many details taken 
from those books, together with sundry rabbinical commentaries. 

"The rabbis say Moses, on Mount Sinai, was not with God forty days 
and forty nights to keep geese; for that God could have written those ta- 
bles of the law in an hour, and sent him away with them, so to have pre- 
vented that idolatry with the golden calf. But God brought Moses into 
a school, and there gave him tiie law, first in writing, and then, in all that 
long time, expounded the same, showing the cause, manner, measure, 
foundation, and intention thereof, in the true sense. This unwritten and 
verbal law did Moses teach Joshua, he the elders, and from these it was 
derived to the prophets. After Zachariah and Malachi, the last of the 
prophets, it came to the great Sanhedrim, and after them by tradition from 
father to son." 

"Rabbi Bechai saith that Moses learned the written law in the day-time, 
and the traditional law by night, for then he could not see to write. Rabbi 
Mosche Mikkotzi says, the cause why God would deliver the same by 
mouth only, was, lest the Gentiles should pervert this, as they did the 
other that was written. And, in the day of judgment, when God shall 
demand who are the Israelites, the Gentiles shaU make challenge, be- 
cause of the law written, but the Jews only shall be accepted as having 
theve7'bal exposition." 

"In one of the rabbinical books, printed at Cremona, A. D. 1556, is this 
sentence: think not that the written law is the foundation, but rather 
the traditional law is the right foundation, and according to this law, did 
God make covenant with the Israelites, for God foresaw their captivity 
in time to come, and, therefore, lest the people, among whom they should 
dwell, should write out and interpret this law as they did the other, God 
would not have it written. And though, in process of time, this law be 
now written, yet it is not explained by the Christians because it is hard, 
and requireth a sharp wit." 

"In the Talmud it is said, to study and read in the Bible is a small 
virtue, but to learn the Mischna, {ov Talmud text,) \s a virtue worthy 
reward, and to learn the Gemara, (the compliment to the Talmud,) by 
heart, is a virtue so great that nothing can be greater. The wise men 
(i. e. rabbis) they say are more excellent than the prophets, and the words 
of the Scribes more lovely than those of the prophets; and, therefore, the 
one were forced to confirm them with miracles, while the other (i. e. the 
words of the rabbis) are simply to be believed, as is said in Deut. xvii. 10. 

"They further say that nothing is more excellent than the holy Talmud: 
and that it is impossible to stand on the foundation of the written law, 
but by the traditional law. To dissent from his doctor (rabbi) is as to 
dissent from God, to believe the words of the wise is as to believe God 
himself," &c. 

"Hence it is that rabbins are more exercised in their Talmud than in the 
Bible, as that on which their faith is founded more than on the other, and 
according to this do they expound the Scripture. And, as their Talmud 
is most certain, so also is that (whatsoever) exposition of their rabbins, 
according to the same. Thus saith rabbi Isaac Abhuhabh, whatsoever 
our rabbins in their sermons and mystical explanations have spoken, we 
are no less firmly to believe than the law of Moses. And if any thing 
therein seem repugnant to our sense, we must impute it to the weakness 
of our conceit and not to their words," &c. 

When two rabbis (saith the Talmud) maintain contrary opinions, yet 
must not men contradict them, because both of them have his cabala or 
tradition for the same. You must believe the words of the rabbi as is 
expounded by Jarchi upon Deut. xvii. 12. Thou shalt not decliiu from 
the ioord that they shall show thee, to the right hand or the left, i. e. says 



Ap. No. 2.] 329 

Jarchi, when a rabbi sailh unto thee of the right hand, that it is the left, 
and of the left hand, that it is the right, thou must believe it," &c. 

That many individuals among the rabbis have been actually insane, I 
apprehend is the only conclusion we can make from many of the rela- 
tions m^de in the Talmud, of which we shall now exhibit some few ex- 
tracts. Tlie following I have taken from Purchas's Pilgrims: 

"Some of the rabbis have written in the Talmud, that God, before thr 
creation of this world, to keep himself from idleness, made and marrert 
other worlds. That he spends three hours a day in reading the Jewish 
law. That Moses one day, ascending to heaven, found God writing ac- 
cents to the words of the law. That God once whijjped the angel Ga- 
briel, for some great ffiult, with a whip of fire." 

In the days of the Messiah, when God shall make a feast for his people, 
shall be slain Behemoth, that great beast, that feedeth on a thousand hills, 
whose magnitude is ascertained by the rabbis from the fiftieth Psalm, "all 
the beasts of the forests are mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." 
The rabbis have asserted that God originally made two such beasts, each 
of which required the herbage of one thousand hills for its daily subsist- 
ence; but fearing the famine that should ensue from two such voracious 
monsters, he gelded the male, and killed and salted the female to be used 
in theday of this anticipated feast. 

At this feast also shall be cooked the great bird called Bariuchne, of 
whom the Talmud says, that an egg once falling out of her nest, over- 
threw and broke down three hundred tall cedars; with which fall the egg 
being broken, overflowed and washed away sixty villages. 

But let these specimens suffice; I could, from Purchas and other wri- 
ters, add several pages of similar tales equally extravagant and incredi- 
ble; what then must be yet buried in the Talmud which has never been 
translated.' 

In the midst of these things so wonderful to our common sense, are to 
be found wise and excellent sayings, and judgments that render the aber- 
ration of their understandings still more apparent. And it is incompre- 
hensible how men could write such amazing nonsense at one time, and 
good sense at another, unless they were judicially blinded. If a single 
person or so should have written in this manner, we should have no dif- 
ficulty in considering him insane through natural infirmity; but when we 
see the teachers and wise men of a whole nation receiving such writings 
with all reverence, who can mistake the fulfilment of judicial sentence 
pronounced by the prophet Isaiah.' 

It seems hardly necessary to inform the reader that the Talmud is in 
the highest reverence with the Jewish teachers at the present time. In 
their religious service for the feast of Pentecost, they exult in having 
received its expositions from God himself The following extract from 
David Levi's translation of the Jewish ritual will sufficiently exhibit this 
matter: 

"Therefore, from Mount Sinai they received the law, not from the 
mouth of an angel, nor was it delivered from the mouth of a messenger, 
but from the mouth of the king covered with light; he, the Omnipotent, 
whose reverence is purity, with his mighty word, he instructed his cho- 
sen, (i. e. Moses,) and clearly explained the law with the word, speech, 
commandment, and admonition, in the Talmud, the Agadah, the 3Iishna, 
and the Testament." 

I have now exhibited, I trust, sufficient evidence to justify the belief 
that the Jews were actually involved in judicial blindness at the time of our 
Saviour's advent, and that the cause of his rejection by them, is especially 
referable to this remarkable circumstance. But as this subject is of great in- 
terest to the Christian world, I apprehend some further discourse to be 
42 



330 [Ap. No. 2. 

necessary, not only as exhibiting the pecuHar proceeding of God towards 
the Jews, but because I consider the subject, in its direct appUcation, to 
be of momentous importance to us of the present day, and which the 
Christian world, in general, seem not to appreciate. If our Saviour an- 
nounced that the Jews of his day were obnoxious to a heavier judgment 
than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, in consequence of their supe- 
rior privileges, to how much more grievous condemnation are we expos- 
ed, who have not considered this warning example of the Jews, and have 
too much fallen into practices like theirs. 

' The prophet Isaiah has very distinctly stated the offence for which 
God suffered this remarkable judgment to fall upon the Jews. 
• "For as much as this people draw near me with their mouths, and with 
their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and 
their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; 

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this 
people, even a marvellous work and a wonder^ for the wisdom of their wise 
men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be 
hid." Isaiah xxix. 13, 14. 

To exhibit our subject in all the force that it requires, I must go back 
to the original covenant which God made with the Jews by the hands of 
Moses. 

However much Jehovah had favored the Jews in his visible providence 
or in his spiritual dispensations, he always told them that he had not cho- 
sen them from their goodness and excellency, but from a gracious prom- 
ise made to the patriarchs of the nation. And in bringing them into the 
land of Canaan as his chosen people, he promised his favor to them on- 
ly on the condition that they should be obedient to his requirements and 
commands. Hence, the Jews were never freed a moment from the com- 
mon trial, whether intellectual or moral, under which Jehovah has placed 
the whole human family. On the contrary, as their privileges had been 
so superior to other nations, so their intellectual and moral responsibili- 
ties were greater in the same degree. 

Moses had announced to them, from time to time, a variety of laws and 
precepts whether religious or civil. He had informed them of every 
thing belonging to their duties whether to Jehovah or to man, and these 
ordinances or institutions he sums up in the book of Deuteronomy, at 
the close of his official intercourse with them, a little while preceding his 
death. The whole law and commandment was then formally recited to 
them in all its enactments. They were required to do this, and they were 
forbidden to do that, and as an effectual check to any improper construc- 
tion of their obligations, they luere forbidden to either add to, or diminish 
from, the law thus given them. Deut. iv. 1, 2; xii. 32. 

Nothing can be more urgent than the language of Moses to the people 
to keep this entire and perfect law of God, and that they might compre- 
hend their intellectual position, and the amount of their obligations, he 
assembled the whole body of the nation before him, as is thus minutely 
related: Deut. xxix. 10, 11, 12. 

"Ye stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God. 

Your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the 
men of Israel. 

Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from 
the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water. 

That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God and into 
his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day." 

These verses show how formally every individual Jew was addressed, 
for after Moses had called their attention to the fact that every individual 
of the nation, able to attend, was now before him, he then exhorts them 



Ap. No. 2.] 331 

to observe and keep all the law of God, with all the heart, and with nil 
the soul, assuring them that if they were obedient, the blessings enume- 
rated in Deut. xxviii. 1 to 14, should be bestowed on them, but if they 
should disobey them, they should endure the infliction of the curses an- 
nounced in Deut. xxviii. 15, ad fmem* 

And least there should be any supposed difficulty in observing and 
keeping the entire law, Moses expressly addresses himself to the univer- 
sal body of the people in the following clear and distinct manner: Deut. 
XXX. 11 to 15. 

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hid- 
den from thee, neither is it afar off. 

It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, who shall go tip for us to 
heaven and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it, 

Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, who shall go over 
the sea for us and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it. 

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, 
that thou mayest do it." 

Thus was the covenant established with the Jews. Jehovah had laid 
down for them a written law, enumerating every thing they were to do, 
and every thing they were not to do. As a consummation to the integ- 
rity of his commandments, they were forbidden either to add to or to di- 
minish from his law. And finally every individual of adult years, was 
declared intellectually capable to construe the law for himself, and as 
such they were necessarily accountable in their individual responsibili- 
ties. Seeing, therefore, the extreme precision and clearness with which 
the law of Jehovah had been announced to the Jewish people, it is not, 
apparently, easy to explain how they could transgress his appointment so 
continually as we find related of them in the Scripture writings. 

Many of their sins must, undoubtedly, be charged to the common in- 
firmity of human nature, which the abundant experience of all time 
shows to be extremely ingenious in evading the force of our religious obli- 
gations, and in finding excuses to gratify our pride or sensuality. We also 
possess power to stifle the suggestions of conscience, when we can find no 
other excuse than that we are too weak to resist temptation. The history 
of the Jews, therefore, on the general question, is no more than that of 
any other people, and needs not that we should use any discourse on that 
point. But how they could fall into the sin of corrupting the law of God 
is not only difficult of comprehension, but deserving of the deepest in- 
vestigation that we can make, to ascertain their procedure. 

As far as I can detect the procedure of the Jews in this particular, it 
appears to me to have been accomplished from the following circum- 
stance: Instead of considering themselves moral and intellectual beings, 
undergoing spiritual probation before Jehovah, they fell into the delusion 
of Realism that an outward formal obedience to the appointments that 
Jehovah had made, was an acceptable service to him, and regarding 
the institutions of Moses as being the express revelation of Jehovah, 
they imagined them to be holy and sanctifying ordinances in their literal 
sense and application. Thus when they were obedient, it was under the 

*These curses were of various kinds, viz. see Deut. xxviii. 

1st. An adverse providence in all their labors and employments, verses 16 to 
20, 38 to 40, 42. 

2d. Bodily diseases and afflictions, 21 to 2-1, 27, .3.5, 59 to (52. 

3d. Subjection to and oppression by foreign nations, 25, 26, 30,33, 36, 41, 
43, 48 to 57, 64 to 68. 

4th. Intellectual blindness and infatuation, 28, 29. 

5th. A reproach among all nations, 37. 



332 [Ap. No. 2. 

supposition that by their offerings, their Eacrifices, their journeys to Jeru- 
salem, their vows and prayers, they actually rendered a service that was 
in itself inherently grateful and acceptable to Jehovah, and under the in- 
fluence of this delusion, they took a larger license to themselves in doing 
what they might find agreeable or ex[)edient, since the means of merito- 
rious service were always in their power. 

The stupid notion that they could propitiate, by the sacrifice of an ani- 
mal, the Deity, who had with a word made all the countless thousands 
of animals iij)on earth: or, that he was gratified with formal vows, fasts, 
or Pharisaical festivals on new moons, &c. undeniably prevailed with the 
Jews from a very remote antiquity, for we find the ])rophet Samuel remon- 
strating with Saul on this subject; and though succeeding prophets, con- 
tinually set before them the absurdity of such a theory, yet all that they 
could do on this subject, however individuals may have been affected, 
would not prevail with the nation at large. They persisted in their per- 
verse notions, and from time to time multiplied the institutions of their 
will-worship, until the religious service, appointed by Jehovah, was 
sensibly adulterated with the accumulating institutions of men. Gradu- 
ally the Spirit of God ceased to strive with them, partially he hid his 
face from them, and left them more unrestrained to follow the preposter- 
ous system they had in the face of his commandments devised for them- 
selves. From time to time he gave them warnings what the end of it 
should certainly be, and which, as being inscribed in the sacred records 
of the nation, so all who heard or read them, liad warning to repent of 
their ways, and seek the fiwor of God in the manner he had prescribed,* 

The denunciation of the prophet Isaiah, in his xix. chapter, was a re- 
markably emphatic warning to the Jews to change their practices, but 
they disregarded it, and persevered in a proceeding, which, as it continu- 
ally grieved the Spirit of God, so he gradually gave them up to their de- 
lusion. Their will-worship and intellectual stupefaction grew together, 
until their ofTence, whether intellectual, moral, or religious, reached such 



*The excellent archbishop Tillotson has made so just an exposition of the 
common proceeding of men on the subject of will-worship, that I have ex- 
tracted his view in the following note. 

"The plain truth of the matter is, men had rather religion should be any 
thing than what indeed it is, the thwarting and crossing of our vicious inclina- 
tions, the curing of our evil and corrupt affections, the due care and govern- 
ment of our unruly appetites and passions, the sincere endeavor and constant 
practice of all-holiness and virtue in our lives; and, therefore, they had much 
rather have something that might handsomely palliate and excuse their evil 
inclinations, than to extirpate them and cut them up; and rather than reform 
and amend their vicious lives, make God an honorable amends and compensa- 
tion lor them in some other way. 

This has been the way and folly of mankind in all ages, to defeat the great 
end and design of religion and to thrust it by, by substituting something else 
in the place of it which they hope may serve the turn as well, and which hath 
the appearance of as much devotion and respect, and perhaps of more cost and 
pains, than that which God requires of them. Men have ever been apt thus 
to impose on themselves, and to please themselves with a conceit of pleas- 
ing God, full as well or better, by some other way than that which he hath 
pitched upon and appointed for them, not considering that God is a great king, 
and will be observed and obeyed by his creatures in his own way, and that 
obedience to what he commands, is better and more acceptable to him than any 
other sacrifice that we can offer, which he hath not required at our hands, that 
he is infinitely wise and good, and therefore the laws and rules which he hath 
given us to live hy are more likely and certain means of our happiness, than 
any inventions and devices of our own." Tillotson, Serm. 20S. 



Ap. No. 1.] 333 

a consummation, "that there was no remedy," and God punished the 
Jewish nation by two captivities among the heathen. The population 
of the kingdom of Israel he never delivered, but those of Judah, after 
having been oppressed for seventy years at Babylon, he brought back 
again and placed them once more in that political condition, that they 
might, if they had pleased, have purified themselves from all the corrup- 
tions of their fathers, and have been established to the glory of his name, 
and their own prosperity whether temporal or spiritual. 

After the return of the .Tews from the B;ibylonian captivity, the pro- 
phets solenmly reminded them of the offences that their lathers had been 
guilty of before Jehovah, and they warned them earnestly not to fall 
into similar transgressions. The first six verses of Zachariah very dis- 
tinctly state this subject, and in various other passages were the Jews 
reminded of what Jehovah had spoken by the former prophets, that they 
should obey the law as taught them by Moses. 

All these considerations, therefore, should have sent the Jews back to 
the Pentateuch, which they could now study with greater advantage 
than their fathers ever enjoyed; for they had the historical books of the 
Old Testament and writings of the prophets to serve as a commentary 
on the law, and every denunciation there made, stood as instruction and 
warning to them against any improper proceeding. The law of Moses 
thus announced to them as their only rule, instructed them in every 
thing that God required them to do, and every thing they were not 
to do. The enactment of Dent. iv. 2, xii. 32, that they were neither to 
add to, nor diminish from, the law, was as obligatory upon them as it 
was upon their fathers, and the right and ability of every individual to 
understand the law for himself was still as much in force as ever. It 
was not in heaven, nor beyond the sea, but it was as in the days of Moses, 
before them to understand and obey it if they would. But however 
plain the course was that the Jews should have followed on this subject, 
they unfortunately pursued a system that led them more and more 
astray from the law of God, and which ultimately brought the heaviest 
judgments upon them. 

That we may have a correct understanding of the circumstances that 
influenced the Jewish people after their return from the Babylonian 
captivity, and which gradually produced an entire departure from the 
spirituality of the law of Jehovah, we must make a brief historical ex- 
position. 

Not only the great body of the laity, but the priesthood themselves, 
had lived at Babylon during the captivity, in great disregard of the law of 
Moses. Whether this f)roceeded from any oppression they endured there, 
or from a careless irreligious disregard of those institutions under which 
they had been placed by God, I cannot undertake to determine, but 
their disregard or ignorance of the law is very eminent in the fact, that 
many of the priests had intermarried with heathen women. Of this 
striking violation of the law we are distinctly informed in Ezra x. and 
of the great trouble be had to induce such to part with their heathen 
wives. From the best mean we have of judging, these iujproper mar- 
riages continued to profane the priesthood for many years after the re- 
turn from Babylon. 

It is also evident there was the greatest ignorance of the law itself, 
both among priests and people, in the fact, that they had lost the use of 
their own language to so great a degree during their captivity, that they 
were obliged to have the Old Testament writings explained to them 
through the medium of the Chaldee language, which they had acquired 
in the land of Babylon. The sacred volume had been greatly disre- 
garded, and probably was collected together with no little labor by Ezra, 



334 [Ap. No. 2. 

for it is computed, by Prideaux, that Ezra did not read the law to the peo- 
ple, or publish the corrected volume of Scripture, until about 95 years 
after the first body of liberated captives had returned to Jerusalem un- 
der the decree of Cyrus. (Prideaux year 444.) 

Inconsequence of this reading of the law by Ezra, the people became 
sensible how flagrantly they had violated its injunctions and many of 
the priests, rulers, and people, entered into a solemn written covenant 
before Jehovah to keep the law, and especially they bound themselves 
to observe the following requirements, which distinctly shows how ir- 
religious the times were. (See Nehemiah chap. x. 30 to' 38.) The partic- 
ulars they more especially bound themselves to observe, were 

Not to marry with the heathen, 30. 

To observe the Sabbath, 31. 

To observe the Sabbatical year, 31. 

To abstain from usury, 31. 

To pay the I of a shekel for the service of the temple, 32, 33. 

To bring first fruits to temple, 35, 37. 

To redeem the first born, 36. 

To pay the Levites their tithes, 37. 

But notwithstanding the exertions of Ezra or Nehemiah, the Jews in 
general appear to have concerned themselves but slowly in reforma- 
tion of their irreligious practices, for we find about 16 years after this 
time, according to Prideaux, (Nehem. xiii.) that Eliashib the high priest, 
had accommodated Tobiah an Ammonite, and enemy to the Jewish 
people, with a lodging in the very temple itself. 

In the satne chapter it is also related, that either by fraud or culpable 
neglect, the Levites had not been supported in their functions, and the 
consequence was they had left the temple to labor for their subsistence. 
These matters were both remedied by Nehemiah; but he complains bit- 
terly that the Sabbath was openly profaned, and that the people and 
even the son of the high-priest had yet contracted marriages with the 
heathen.— Nehem. xiii. 15 to 21, 28 to 29. 

To this account we might add sundry matters to be gleaned from the 
prophets Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi, who all wrote during the 
time of Ezra and Nehemiah, but, as we are limited in our digressions, 
we shall omit them. 

Having thus shown how great was the ignorance of the Jews after 
the return from Babylon, concerning the law of Moses, and how little 
they governed themselves by its enactments, we must now state, that the 
reformations of Ezra and Nehemiah tended greatly to induce a better 
condition of things. Through the care of Ezra, the Jews had been 
provided with the written law, and by his authority, as is generally sup- 
posed, synagogues had been established throughout the land, in which 
the law was read and expounded every Sabbath day. 

The concurrence of so many means to enlighten and instruct, accom- 
panied with a general prosperity and exemption from national calamity, 
which endured about 240 years,* gradually aroused the Jews to study 
the law of Moses, but under the influence of the following considerable 
disadvantage, they had used the Chaldee language at Babylon to such 
an extent, that it prevailed ultimately over their ancient form of speech, 
so that in a few years after their restoration, the Hebrew became a 



* From about the year B. C, 409 to 170, era period of two hundred and 
thirty-nine years, the Jews though occasionally troubled, suffered no national 
calamity. But from this time they endured cruel oppressions from the ne- 
farious princes around them, and a profligate administration at home, until 
their misery received its consummation by the Romans under Titus. 



Ap. No. 2.] 335 

dead language, alone understood by those who appUed themselves to its 
study. 

In the desire of the Jews to re-establish all things on the ancient 
foundations, arose a greater or less degree of reverence to the instruc- 
tions of those, who had either been taught by persons who lived before 
the desolation of Jerusalem, or at least held at second-hand the doctrines 
of such persons. Such authorities being gradually brought in to explain 
the daw now studied after so long disuse, insensibly gave rise to that 
most portentous doctrine of the Jews, concerning the traditions of the 
elders, which ultimately wholly perverted the simplicity of the written 
law, and substituted in its place the most extraordinary system of teach- 
ing and precept the world has ever seen. 

Nothing seems to us more wonderful than that the Jews should fall 
into this system of regarding their ancient rabbis with respect, for these 
teachers had lived before the captivity, and were involved in all the in- 
iquities of the times for which Jehovah had punished the nation. Con- 
sequently the more they conformed to the ancient rabbis, the more they 
made themselves like those whom Jehovah had visited with his dis- 
pleasure. 

The proper course of the Jews was to follow the recommendations 
of their prophets, who earnestly urged them to an obedience to the law 
of God as set forth in the books of Moses. But instead of this, they ap- 
pear to have exerted themselves not to understand Moses in the simplic- 
ity of his communications, but to recover the expositions, commenta- 
ries, and doctrines, which their fathers had entertained on the subject. 
The moment that such a system was admitted, the responsibility of in- 
dividual consciences was silenced, and a door was opened for the admis- 
sion of the most unbounded influx of notions and opinions, that whether 
correctly or incorrectly, might have been connected with the name of 
some ancient rabbi. 

It was the natural consequence to such a proceeding, that the Jews 
should gradually lose sight of the fact, that their religious obedience de- 
pended alone upon the conscientious discharge of their duties as indi- 
vidual free agents, undergoing moral probation before Jehovah, and it 
is equally intelligible how they should fall into the pernicious doctrines 
of Realism, in attributing something inherently excellent in their law and 
its several institutions. They, therefore, strictly observed the literal 
precepts of the law, but without any spiritual discernment, they multi- 
plied the services of the law, and by inferences and analogies, they 
gradually extended its requirements to almost every act in which men 
could be employed. In so doing they imagined they were glorifying 
Jehovah, not considering that he alone requires the heart and affec- 
tions of his creatures, and that it must be evidently impossible to please 
him by any homage or service, no matter how expensive or painful it 
might be, which the Deity had not required. Their will-worship, how- 
ever, was not simply superogatory, but actually set aside that one which 
he had appointed for them to observe. 

Hence the will-worship of the Jews and their spiritual discernment of 
the law, were in an inverse proportion, they made things of little or no 
importance to be matters of great value, and they overlooked things of 
great consequence as if they were nothing. 

As it is impossible for any thing to be clearer than the commands or 
the prohil)itionsof Jehovah, as stated in tlie law of Moses, so it must be 
evident, that atiy attempt to enlarge their significance would be to render 
them less clear and intelligible, and the consequence of accumulating im- 
pertinent expositions upon the law, would be, that sooner or later the 
direct spiritual sense of the precepts would become overwhelmed in those 



336 [Ap. No. 1. 

fanciful and mystical meanings, which a perverse ingenuity might mul- 
tiply almost to infinitude. This procedure we can distincily trace in the 
Jewish church. First arose the authority of their traditions, concerning 
the ohservance of their la,ws, afterwards came the Talmuds, and finally 
came the boundless extravagances of the Cahalla. 

With every step of this aeteriorating process, the Spirit of Jehovah 
the only soiirce of true wisdom and knowledge, was grieved, and its in- 
fluences were withheld from the nation more and more with the lapse of 
time, so that the continual progress of their will-worship, was facilitated 
by the increasing amount of their judicial blindness. Jehovah, as it 
were, giving them up to follow their perverse imaginations, unrestrained 
by his spiritual influence. 

Though we are unable to show the reader to what precise extent the 
Jews had departed from the spirituality of God's law, through their ob- 
servanceof the doctrines and precepts of men, at any time preceding the 
advent, yet, from certain observations of the evangelists,* and from the 
fact that they were so blind as to charge our Saviour and his disciples 
with impiety in profaning the Sabbath, when they miractilously did 
works of mercy and benevolence to the sick and the afflicted, we can 
hardly suppose their perversion of sense and Scripture to have been less 
than it was in those more modern times, when they committed their 
doctrines to writing, and which they themselves assert had prevailed 
among them from an early time of their history. 

Though we have no idea of using the Jewish theory on this subject, 
according to their exhibition, we shall make use of it so far as may be 
sufficient to justify our view, that the following notions or doctrines were 
actually in force, at, and before the coming of our Saviour, and by which 
the reader may be able to form a reasonable notion of that system of 
will- worship that prevailed among them at the time of his manifestation. 

It was the appointment of Jehovah that they should do no work on 
the Sabbath. This matter, if spiritually considered, is so plain, that 
every one can keep this commandment without any perplexity. But, 
under the teaching of the rabbis, we find that though their observance of 
the Sabbath was burthensome in its minute details, yet the spirituality of 
God's commandment was lost sight of altogether. 

In the first place, the matters to be regarded in keeping the Sabbath, 
are enumerated by the rabbis under tliirty-rdne different heads. Among 
these various particulars, which necessarily include every act almost that 
men could be engaged in, are the following: 

If a Jew feeds his fowls with grain on the Sabbath, he must take the 
greatest care that none of it remain where it might sprout and grow, for 
if that took place, he had sown seed on the Sabbath day, which was a 
forbidden work. 

The rabbis have further prohibited or discouraged persons from walk- 
ing in the grass on the Sabbath, lest they should pull it vp with their 
feet. Or to hang any thing on the bough of a tree lest it break. No one 
could eat fruit of any kind that was plucked on the Sabbath. If the 
house in which a Jew lived took fire on the Sabbath, it was unlawful to 
carry any thing out but the food, raiment, and necessaries, required for 
that single day. To do more than this, would he to hear ahurthen on the 
Sabbath. 

On the Sabbath a horse might have a halter or bridle put on to lead 
him, but he that led him must let it hang so loose, that it may seem he 
rather carried it than led the horse. 



*See Math. xiii. 15. xv. 1 to 6. 14. xxiii. 16 to 24. Mark vii. 8, 9, 13. 



Ap. No. 2.] 337 

They must not wear clogs or pattens on their feet on the Sabbath, for 
that would be carrying a burthen. 

There are other rabbinical precepts, concerning Sabbatical observances, 
that I am unable to discern in what the offence consisted. I shall, there- 
fore, alone enumerate them without any conjecture on that [)oint. 

A hen may not wear a rag sewed on her leg, this mark must be taken 
off before the commencement of the Sabbath. A tailor may not wear a 
needle sticking on his garment. The lame man may use a staff", the 
blind not on that day. It is lawful to carry a plaister on a sore, but if it 
fall off", they must not put it on again. If a man soils his hands on the 
Sabbath, he may not wipe them clean on a towel, but he is innocent if 
he use a cow or horse's tail. If a flea bite, he may remove it, but not kill 
it, a louse he may kill; but the rabbis disagree on this question, for rabbi 
Eleazar says, one may as well kill a camel. If an article was carried on 
one shoulder it was a burthen, but not so if it required both. 

God in the Scripture has said, ye shall sanctify my Sabbaths. To do 
this properly, the rabbis inform us those things must be done on the Sab- 
bath which tend to the honor of the day. Among other matters, to prepare 
better food than on ordinary days. The Talmud relates that a butcher 
of Cyprus, who reserved all his best meat for the use of the Sabbath, grew 
by divine rewai-d, so rich that his table, and all his table furniture, were 
of gold. 

The following manner of honoring the Sabbath may not be said in 
English: Dicunt cabalistse quod qui uxorem suam cognovit in media 
noctis veneris adveniente Sabbato, et non aliter, prospera erit ei generatio. 
&c. 

Now, where men devoted themselves to the study of the law of Moses, 
as involved in the ten thousand observations and prohibitions that might 
be constructed on similar notions, it is evident that they lose sight alto- 
gether of the spirituality of God's precept, and their strict observances as 
dictated by rabbinical commentary, would not be an obedience to God's 
law, but to the precepts of men. And the system itself is so preposter- 
ously absurd, that no one can account for its establishment, but under the 
theory that they who devised, and they who reverenced it, were alike in- 
volved in the infatuation of a judicial blindness. 

That the reader may have sufficient information to appreciate the judi- 
cial blindness of the Jewish nation, I shall now lay before him a long ex- 
tract from the writings of Maimonides, who is indisputably the most 
intelligent of all the rabbinical writers. And, yet, notwithstanding this 
commendation, it is impossible not to be struck with the extraordinary 
blindness of the writer. This fact furnishes us with another proof of tlie 
fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy on the wise and learned, for it is utterly 
incomprehensible how any one possessing so much intelligence on many 
points, should on others appear to be wholly deficient in the perception 
of what we must call mere common sense. 

The extract I shall furnish is from Maimonides's views upon the per- 
petual obligation of the Law, by which he means not that delivered by 
Moses in the Pentateuch, but as including all those traditions, and doc- 
trines, which have been added by the elders and rabbis. 

The extract is further important as we may there distinctly see the 
exhibition of those delusive notions, by which the Jews rejected, and do 
still reject, Jesus of Nazareth, for Maimonides, who lived in the twelfth 
century, evidently directs his arguments against the founder of the Chris- 
tian faith. 



43 



338 [Ap. No. 2. 

On the perpetual ohligalion of the Mosaic Laws, from the Yad 
Hachazakah of Maimonides. 

"With regard to the law, it is clear and manifest that it is a command- 
ment which is to last ybr ever and ever, and which does not admit of any 
alteration, diminution, or addition; for it is said: what thing soever I com- 
mand yo a, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from 
itJ^ Dent. xii. 32. Again, it is said: but those things whicht are revealed 
belong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words 
of this law. Deut. xxix. 29. Behold! this informs us, that with respect 
to all the words of the law, we are commanded to perform the same 
FOR EVER. Moreover, it is said, ^n ordinance for ever in your genera- 
tions. Numb. XV. 15. And, again it is said: it is not in heaven, &c. 
Deut. XXX. 12. 

Behold! this informs us that no prophet is allowed to introduce, hence- 
forth, any innovation. Should therefore any man arise, either from among 
the nations, or from among Israel, and perform any sign or wonder, and de- 
clare that the Lord has sent him to add any commandment, or to diminish 
any commandment, or to explain any of the commandments, in such a way 
as we have not heard from Moses;f or, if he were to say that the com- 
mandments which have been commanded to the Israelites, are not to last 
for ever, and from generation to generation, but that they were only tem- 
porary commandments, then, behold, that man is a faise prophet, {ioi;be- 
hold, he came to deny the prophecy of Moses) and so he is to be destroyed 
by strangulation, in consequence of his having dealt proudly, by thus 
speaking in the name of the Lord, things which he has not commanded 
him; for he, blessed be his name! has on the contrary enjoined Moses, that 
this commandment should be unto us and our children for ever, and 
God is not a man that he should lie. 

But if so, why then is it said in the law, / will raise them up a prophet 
from among their brethren like ujnto thee? (Deut. xviii. 18) By this it 
is not meant that he (the prophet) is to come to establish any new 
law, but only to enjoin the observation of the actual law, and to warn 
the people that they should not trespass against it;J just as the last of 
the prophets said. Remember ye, the law of Moses my servant, (Mai. iv. 4.) 
Moreover if he (the prophet) were to charge us with any thing respect- 
ing private matters, as for instance, go into that place, or do not go; join 
battle to-day, or do not join battle; build this wall, or do not build it; 
we are likewise commanded to hearken unto him. 

And he who trespasses against his words, (i. e. of the prophet,) de- 
serves to be destroyed by heaven, for it is said, ^ind it shall come to pass 
that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in 
my name. / will require it of him. (Deut. xviii. 19.) Moreover a prophet 
who trespssses against his own words, or suppresses his prophecy, also 
deserves to be destroyed by heaven; and it is with regard to these three 
cases that it is said, I will require it of him. 

Also if a prophet, whom we know to be a prophet, were to tell us that 
we should trespass against any one of the commandments stated in the 

*True; and why did the elders and rabbis add to this law, and why did they 
diminish from it, by substituting their doctrines? 

t Again we ask, why they do not apply their censure to their rabbis, who 
have added their tiaditions to this law, which was sanctioned by Jehovah? 

X And why have the rabbis trespassed ao-ainst the law, by teaching a 
variety of observances that annul its evident import? What is the difference 
between formally repealing a law, and that of giving it a construction that 
contradicts its plain significance? 



Ap. No. 2.] 339 

law, or even against several commandments whether they he slight or 
important ones for a certain time only; we arc commaiHicd to liearkcn 
unto him/* 

And in this manner if any one of the prophets order us to transgress a 
commandment temporarily, we are commanded to hearken unto him, 
but if he say that the thing is to he broken/or ever, he must be destroyed 
l)y strangulation, for the law says, Unto us and our children forever. — 
Deut. xxix. 29, 

And in like manner, if he (the prophet) propose to break any of the 
things ivhich ive have learned by tradition,] or if he say with respect to 
any point of the law that the Lord has enjoined him that the matter 
should be decided so and so, or that in any rabbinical controversy the 
point ought to be decided by the opinion of such and such a person, 
then behold that man is a false prophet, and must be strangled, although 
he perform a sign, for, beliold he came to give the lie to the law which 
says. It is not in heaven.\ (Deut. xxx. 12.) But in temporary matters we 
must hearken unto him in every thing. See Yad Hachazakah, (trans- 
lation,) pages 127 to 138. 

But as if all this exposition be not enough to establish the perpetual 
obligation of the Law of Moses; Maimonides says in a previous chapter, 

"And therefore if a prophet were to arise and perform great signs or 
wonders, but sought to deny the prophecy of Moses, our rabbi, (that is 
as expounded by the rabbis,) we should not hearken to him, but should 
know certainly that the signs were performed by enchantment or witch- 
craft, seeing that the prophecy of Moses, our rabbi, was not established 
by signs, so that we could compare the signs of this man with the signs 



* I omit the reasoning of Maimonides and the rabbins upon this point, 
which is founded upon the fact of the prophet Elijah having offered a burnt 
offering on Mount Carmel, as is related in 1 Kings xviii. and which offering 
was prohibited by the law of Moses to be offered elsewhere than at the place 
of the ark of the Covenant. 

t Where did Maimonides learn this doctrine? In what passage of the 
Scripture are the traditions of the elders thus exalted? 
XNote on the passage, It is not in heaven, by the editor of the Yad Hachazakah. 

The importance which the rabbins attach to this passage of Scripture, It is 
not in heaven, &c. is so great, that they go so far as to say, that it implies 
that God himself has renounced the right of ever interfering in the discus- 
sions of any of the commandments enjoined in the law, so that not only a pro- 
phet who should assume the right of deciding any rabbinical controversy on the 
alleged authority of inspiration, would be disregarded, but even a voice from 
heaven itself would be, and actually has been, disregarded in such instances." 
In the Babylonian Talmud is related an occurrence of tliis kind, which we will 
abridge. 

A controversy on some point of the law took place between rabbi Eleazar, 
and other rabbins, who rejected the opinion of Eleazar, Then said this last, 
If my opinion is true, let this carob-tree remove from its place, which the 
tree did accordingly several hundred cubits. If my opinion be true, says he, 
let this stream of water prove it, so the stream of water changed its course 
and flowed backwards. Then he said again to the rabbins. If the matter is to 
be decided by my opinion, let them prove it from heaven. So a voice from 
heaven went forth and said, "What will you have fiom rabbi Eleazar; accord- 
ing to his opinion matters ought to be decided in all instances." 

Notwithstanding all these miraculous signs, tiie rabbits rejected Eleazar's 
opinion, under the authority of the passage. It is not in heaven, ijr. 

One ol'the rabbis, who encountered the prophet Elijah in his glorified state, 
asked him what did God do at the time that the rabbins disregarded his voice as 
above stated, and received from the prophet this answer, that God had laughed 
and said, My children have triumphed over me! My children have tritnnphcd over 
me! 



340 [Ap. No. 2. 

of the other, but we saw it with our own eyes, and heard it with our 
own ears, the same as Moses himself heard it.* 

"And therefore," says Maimonides, "the law says, that if even the sign 
or the wonder come to pass, thou shalt still not hearken unto the words 
of that prophet, for behold this man comes to thee with a sign or won- 
der, to deny that which thou sawest with thine own eyes, and since we 
only believe signs in consequence of the commandment with which 
Moses has charged us, how then are we to receive the sign of him who 
comes to deny the prophecy of Moses, our rabbi, which we both saw 
and heard." 

It must be evident from the preceding observations of Maimonides, 
that the foundation of all his reasoning is laid upon the ground that God 
had made an everlasting covenant with the Jewish people, that the law 
was of everlasting obligation upon them, and that it never could be abro- 
gated. Upon this theory, therefore, he, as well as the other rabbis avow 
that they would hold any one a false prophet that should teach any doc- 
trine contrary to this hypothesis, though he exhibited signs and wonders 
as miraculous evidence of a divine mission. 

As the rabbis, however, under the term law of God, or law of Moses, 
do not mean the law, as published in the Pentateuch, but as also implying 
their traditional law, it is evident that we must separate the two. For, 
we admit that Jehovah did assign the written law as the basis of an ever- 
lasting covenant with the Jews. But, we deny that he has ever compre- 
hended the traditions ofthe Jevv&, under the sanctions given to the ob- 
servance of the written law; on the contrary, as far as we can discern 
the subject, he has denounced his judgments upon those that do observe 
and keep its ordinances as being the precepts of men. 

Hence all Maimonides's arguments and quotations from Scripture, in 
which judgment was denounced against any departure from the observ- 
ance of the law, are only applicable to the law wiitten by Moses. The 
prophet who taught men to forsake and disregard the traditionary law, so 
far from being obnoxious to judgment for so doing, was doing an act we 
should suppose acceptable to Jehovah, by separating his law from the 
impertinent appointments and precepts of men, who, by his express 
command, were forbidden to add to, or diminish from, the requirements 
as published by Moses. 

But, can any greater evidence of delusion be exhibited than in the 
preceding arguments of Maimonides. Jehovah had appointed a law, to 
which he had annexed particular sanctions. To this law, and directly 
contrary to a positive enactment, the rabbis add another law, which they 
make of equal obligation with the revealed law, and they then affirm the 
judgment of Jehovah is levelled against the infraction of their additional 
law. 

Such a doctrine as this, though astounding in its absurdity, is surpassed 
by the one that declares if an individual should teach them to disregard 
this traditional law, that they would not believe, but that they would stran- 
gle him, even though he exhibited signs and wonders from lieaven to con- 
firm the truth of his mission. 

Judicial blindness of the darkest kind must necessarily fall upon such 
teachers, and we may well omit any attempt to reason with persons who 



* The rabbins proferis to believe in the truth of their law, alone in the fact 
that God himself spoke to the whole nation or people from Mount Sinai. — 
Exod xix. 9. 

As for the other miracles of Moses, they were not to convince unbelief, but 
were matters of necessity to the preservation of the people. — Yad Hachazakah. 
122, &c. 



Ap. No. 2.] 341 

announce they will neither listen to God or man, if he opposes their doe- 
trines. Under such a delusion as this, there can be no difficulty in com- 
prehending why the Jews rejected Jesus of Nazareth. His miracles, his 
pure doctrine, his confutation of their errors, all availed nothing. They 
reverenced their traditions, they had established a service of will-worship, 
Jehovah had abandoned them, and they were judicially blind. "The 
vision of the prophets had become to them as a book that was sealed," and 
the truth of God's judgment, as delivered by the prophet Isaiah, stands 
manifestly fulfilled. 

Before I leave this subject, it may not be amiss to make a few remarks 
on the doctrine of the modern rabbis concerning the covenant that God 
made with their fathers through Moses. This covenant was not an ever- 
lasting or perpetual covenant in the absolute sense, it was so on certain 
conditions. If the Jews had observed and kept the law of Jehovah with 
faithfulness, then Jehovah's covenant with them would have been per- 
petual on his part, and he would have sustained them as his people, in 
the enjoyment of their privileges, until the consummation of all earthly 
things. 

But the Jews did not observe the law of Jehovah, they broke it in 
every particular, and when he punished them for their disobedience, they 
nevertheless would not amend, but made themselves more and more dis- 
obedient, at last he cast them off, forsook them, disowned them for his 
people, and annulled the covenant on his part, as they had done on theirs. 
There was, therefore, an end to the covenant by both parties, and 
where has Jehovah promised to renew the covenant^ he made with the 
Jews by the hand of Moses. 

It is true that Jehovah, in various places of the Scripture, says he will 
remember the covenant he njade with their fathers, and that when the 
nation shall become sincerely repentant before him, that he will bring 
them back to their ancient country. But, in saying he will remember 
the covenant he made with their fathers, I presume no more is meant 
than that he will forgive them, as he promised he would, when they should 
become repentant, and that he would show mercy and kindness to them 
again, as he had repeatedly promised to do by the various prophets he 
sent them during their perverse and rebellious conduct. 

That Jehovah shall bring back the Jews under the anrAent covenant is 
no where promised in Scripture, that I know of, but on the contrary 
there are several passages in the prophetic writers that seem distinctly 
to assert that the Jews in their restoration shall be placed under a cove- 
nant different from that established by Moses, as the following quota- 
tions evidently imply. 

"And it shall come to pass when ye be multiplied and increased in the 
land in those days, (the age of the Messiah,) saith the Lord, they shall 
say no more the ark of the covenant of the Lord, neither shall it come to 
mind, neither shall they rtmemher it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall 
that be done any more. 

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all 
the nations shall be gathered into it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusa- 
lem, neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their 
evil heart." — Jeremiah iii. 1C>, 17. 

"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, ivhcn I will make a new covenant 
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. 

JVot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day 

thai I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land (f Egypt, which 

my covenant they brake, although I was an husband xwto them, sail h the Lord. 

But this shall be]the covenant that I shall make uiththc house of Israel. 

.fifter those days, saith the Lord, I loill put my law in their inward parts, 



342 [Ap. No. 2. 

and torite it in their hearts^ and will he their God, and they shall be my peo- 
ple. — Jeremiah xxxi. 31, 32, 33. 

I presume the reader, by this lime, can have no difficnlty in a|)pre- 
ciating the moral and intellectual condition of the Jewish people at the 
time of our Saviour's advent, and the motives that induced them to re- 
ject him as the Messiah. As Jehovah had foretold by the prophets, they 
had grieved his spirit so that his influences had been withdrawn from 
them, and they had been given up to follow their own perverse notions. 
They thus considered themselves as serving the Deity with great de- 
votion, when they rigidly observed the presumptuous doctrines and cer- 
emonies which their scribes and rabbis had so interlaced with the com- 
mandments of Jehovah, that any infraction of the heterogeneous sys- 
tem was considered a violation of what he had appointed. Under this 
delusion of their own creating, they were unwilling, and as such were un- 
able to see the truth when manifested to them by Jesus Christ, and under 
the same delusion, all those that did see and obey, were persecuted by 
them. As the evidence, whether by the fulfilment of prophecy, or in 
the exhibition of miraculous power by Jesus Christ and his disciples, 
was totally disregarded by them, that they might sustain their pharisai- 
cal institutions, so Jehovah could not do more towards converting them 
than he had now done, unless by miraculously overpowering their stub- 
born unbelief. But this was not a part of his plan, be had made them 
free agents, free to stand, free to fall, he had borne with them, he had 
intreated them, he had punished them, during the space of sixteen centu- 
ries, and when in the consummation of all those preparations which he 
had made by the prophets for the advent of the Messiah, they now re- 
fused to listen to the miraculous proofs exhibited to them, and perversely 
referred them to demoniacal agencies. There was nothing further to be 
done, as had been said of their fathers, "the thing was w^ithout remedy," 
therefore their city and nation was given up to be destroyed, and the un- 
happy survivors being dispersed over the earth, went forth to fulfil the 
conditional punishments that had been foretold should befal them in case 
of their disobedience, and they haveever since, thus borne witness to the 
truth of that divine revelation, that Jehovah first condescended to their 
fathers, and which he now has made known to the Gentiles. 

The Jews, in their present afiiicted condition, are Jehovah's witnesses, 
as he told them they should be. If they had done right, their visible 
prosperity through manifest exhibitions of divine providence, would 
have made them joyful witnesses to the nations of the earth, of the pow- 
er and truth of Jehovah. But as they were perverse and disobedient, 
they witness to the same truth with as much intensity, though they are 
sorrowful and afflicted. Jehovah chose them for his witnesses, and so 
they must continue, preserved by his power, until the times of the Gen- 
tiles shall be fulfilled. 

But though the Jews have been seemingly so remarkable a people in 
the moral history of mankind for their perverseness, for their will-wor- 
ship, and for their judicial blindness; yet nevertheless I do not consider 
these traits to be of any national defect or constitution, but to character- 
ize human nature. I believe the Jews to be neither better nor worse, 
nor in anywise difl^erent from ourselves, or any other nation under 
heaven. We are just as acceptable or offensive before Jehovah in 
our private and national religious doctrines and practices, as they were 
in proportion to the adv^antages we possess. Their history and the 
judgments upon them having been recorded from the fii-st against them, 
for our benefit, should be an example to us of what the constitution of 
human nature is, that we may avoid their mistake and delusions. They 
have indeerl ever been Jehovah's witnesses, and will be providentially 



Ap. No. 2.] 343 

preserved by him until the fulness of tiino shall come. Then they shall 
once more be received into favor, and having become converted, they 
shall return to their own land in all prosperity and blessedness. 

"Thussayeth the Lord God: Behold! I will take the children of Israel 
from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them 
on every side, and bring them into their own land. 

And David my servant shall be king over them, and they all shall have 
one shepherd, they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my 
statutes and do them. 

Moreover / will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an 
everlasting covenant tvith them, and I will place them, and multiply 
them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever more." — 
Ezekiel xxxviii. 21, 24, 26. 



I N 1) E X . 

Arian doctrine concerning the Godhead, 1^\ 

Atheistical objections stated and coiiihted, . . . . :i4, 8(), }<cc. :>J). I(> 

Boliiigbroke, Lord, arj^ument on goodness of God, ^17 

Brougham, Lord, on miraculous evidence, -JIH 

Christianity, incapable of absolute demonstration, and why, . . M, llf) 
" how we are to judge of its truth or falseliood, 22, 103. 1 19 

" certain arguments in its favor overestimated, . . . Ill 

" on the promulgation of, 214 

" essential doctrines of, stated, 245 

" presumptuous or unwarrantable doctiines of, . . . 260 

Church, on its authority and constitution , . . . . 234 

'^ on its piogress to ecclesiastical domination, 304 

" Fathers of, concerning their authority, 291 

Creeds and Confessions of Faith, &c 301 

Deistical objections to Christianity, the fundamental errors of, 97. ik.c. 

Eternal Punishments concerning, 277 

Evil, Moral and Physical error, concerning, 39 

Fathers of the Church, on their authority, 291 

Faith, Salvation by, " 248, 256 

God, on the existence of 30 

" attributes of, as inlerrible from natural world, .... 44, 98 

" whether he can be inferred to be good, 4(>, 55 

" whether his particular providence be visible, . . . . 51, 71 

Good Works, concering their nature, 253, J^c. 

Human Mind, its powers must be appreciated, 14 

" Soul, whether it be immortal, 52,72 

" Testimony how to ascertain the credibilty of, 104 

Jews, civil polity of, 131 

" the theory of their civil government, 146 

" " " Ecclesiastical constitution 150 

" On the origin of kingly power among the, 143 

" Priests of, as implicated with civil polity 125, 136 

" " tithes of, their singular enactment. .... 1.53 

" " Urim and Thummim, no selfish contri\ ance of, . 138 

" " no authority to people on religious doctrines, . 1.57, 8tc. 

" " it is incredible that they were impostors, 162, 195 

" " historical notice of, after settlement of Canaan, 167 

" " of their agency in making communications from God, 185 

" " wrought no miracles, 185 

" " their true official position, 197 

" incredulity concerning Jesus of Mazareth 223 

" judicial blindness of, 325 

" Prophets of, concerning 18? 



346 

Pafe. 

Jesus ol' Nazareth, sketch ol' liis life and office, 216 

" " proofs that he was the Messiah, 220 22.5 

" " credibility of his Evangelists and Apostles, 219, &c. 225 

" " incredulity of the Jews, concerning, . . 223 

Kingly Power, its remarkable origin among the Jews, . . 143 

Liberty and Necessity, on the controversy concerning, ... 19 

Moral Distinctions, investigation concerning their nature, . 75, 83, 91 

Miracles, on their value as evidence, 113 

Moses, on his character as implicated in the civil constitutions of 

the Jews, 125 

Messiah, prophetical annunciations concerning, 199, 203 

" the theory of a strong evidence of the integrity of Scrip- 
ture vn-iters, 211 

Ministry, the Christian unlike the Jewish priests, 310 

Ministry, the Christian, on their true functions, 295, &c . 

" " how they attained to ecclesiastical rule, . . . 304 

Maimonides, extract from, 338 

Necessity, on the doctrine of, 19 

Natural theology, investigation concerning, 27, 43 

« " falsely estimated by Christians, 56 

« « measurably judged firom Pagan writings, ... 60 

« " ti'ue amount and value of its inferences, ... 73 

Nominalists, concerning the, 77 ^ 

Original Sin, 263 

Probation, Christian, the theory of 12, 246 

Priests, (see Jews,) 

Pentateuch, the absurdity of supposing it to be an imposture, . . 164, &c. 

Prophets, on the Jewish, 187 

« of great importance in estimating the truth of Mosaic dis- 
pensation, 190 

Predestination, 275 

Passover, the priesthood had no concern in its celebration, 311,-320 

Rabbinical notions, ^^6 

Realists, , V 

Scriptures, always asserted by Deists an ecclesiastic fraud, . . 120 

the Canon of, 228, 230 

<< integrity of the text, 234 

" Inspiration of, 239 

" English translation of, 240 

Salvation by Faith, 248, 256 

Spirit of God, influences of the, 257 

Sin original, 263 

" the true nature of, 268 

Socinian doctiines, 280 

Talmud, some account of, JD^'W • ; • • • ^^7 

Theology Natural, (see A^a/wr a/,) ^9j **,-_ 

Tithes (see Jews,) t' 

Trinity, on the, .... 27S 

Unitarian doctrines, 280 

Urim and Thummim, not a selfish contrivance of the priests, 138 






'% 


.^^■ 


:' 




%■■ 






.,^ 


cO 


" '■» 


■% 







.n:^^' '% 






.-^^ 






.0 0^ 






\v^j:s^ 



O 0^ 






>!^'^ 








^>^ ^M<'^ %r^^^^^ 



"-.^vjp;,' ^ 


x 


'-/•*/V-' 


^. . -^ 


. ^ / : .^ 




,0o ■* < 




'> ^' ', ^. 




r\0 '^' 




,0^ -o^ 





-0 



.N -c 



.v'->^;:^^% 






;t_ 



oo 



A -7", ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

v .^^ Mciiitrali7inn anont' K^annociirm DviHe 



^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
"^^ Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



Z'':% 



v^ 



■'\i\ ,» ' ., -r-. 



'■\. z^- 








. ^^^.<^^' 


r 










^^ v^^ 






% 



^^" •''^^ 






cr 


















,v ^ «•. 



.^■^^ 






''■^^ 









.<\^^' .\0^^: 






0~ 






,\^' •^: 



